T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for injunction. He filed the suit with the allegation that plot No. 23/2 measuring about 5 biswas is his abadi land over which stand his houses and trees etc. The vacant plot of land constitutes his Sahan and that he was in possession bf the same. It was alleged that the Defendants have had no right, title and interest in the said land or any portion there if but they illegally in collusion with his friend and supporters threatened to interfere with the Plaintiff's possession other the said land and to cut down the trees standing thereon. He also alleged that he had made an objection before the consolidation authorities but the s me was rejected on technical grounds, hence he filed the suit for the aforesaid relief. The suit was contested by the Defendants on a number of grounds. They asserted that the plot in dispute was their grove and the Plaintiff had no interest therein. Even in consolidation proceedings the right of the Defendants wad recognised and the Plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to agitate the same in the civil court. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the said decision was also dismissed. He has now come to this Court in second appeal.
(2.) BOTH the courts below had taken the view that the suit was barred be the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, The learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that no doubt the Plaintiff had filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the relevant entry pertaining to the plot in suit but as the said application was rejected on the ground that it was barred by time and as no decision on merits was given, the Plaintiff could agitate in the suit before the civil court that the entry in question was wrong and as such the suit Was not, barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It appears that an application was moved by the Plaintiff before the Consolidation Officer for correction of the entry pertaining to the land in question. This application was rejected on the ground that the application ought to have been moved Under Section 11 or Section 20 within the time prescribed therein. The objection was also held to be barred by time. It appears that the Consolidation Officer has wrongly quoted Section 11 in his order. In fact it should be Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The question for determination is whether the entry which was sought to be corrected before the consolidation authorities and which was in fact not corrected could be disputed in a civil suit and resort could be had to Sub -section (2) of Section 27 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in that behalf and whether such a question could be resisted in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the said Act. These two questions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue, 1972 AWR 338. In that case also the principal question which was raised on behalf of the Petitioner was that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was inapplicable and that the case was governed by 27(2) thereof. It was held by the Division Bench that there is nothing to indicate that Section 27(2) over -rides, modifies or repeals any part of Section 49. Section 27(2) deals with the evidentiary value of the entries made in the record of rights prepared Under Section 27(1) of the Act. Section 49 raises a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue Courts for entertaining suits or proceedings of the kind mentioned in it. The two sections operate in different fields. They do not override or infringe upon the other. This supports the submission that Section 27(2) of the Act does not in any manner fritter away the effect of Section 49. Section 49 by its Clause (1) declares that adjudication of rights of tenure -holder shall be done in accordance with the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act while the second clause is with respect to rights which could or ought to have been so adjudicated. The defence in that case also raised a question as to adjudication of right with respect to the plots in dispute. It was held that such a defence cannot be entertained by the Revenue Court, if a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act with respect to the right sought to be questioned. It was further observed that the provisions of Section 27(2) and Section 49 when read together make it clear that a suit or proceeding for the correctness of entry on the ground that it is not true or correct will be entertainable only if it is not barred by Section 49. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that this proposition of law as laid down by the Division Bench is erroneous. I find no force in this contention inasmuch as Section 27(2) deals with the evidentiary value of the entries whereas Section 49 raises a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil or revenue courts in entertaining suits or proceedings in which the correctness of such an entry is challenged. If the Civil or revenue courts are debarred from entertaining such question, obviously that court cannot enter into the merits of the dispute and decide about the correctness of the entries. The courts below were, therefore, justified in holding that the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Act.
(3.) NO other point was urged.;