Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Bench admitting this writ petition was of the opinion that the decision in Shah Mohammad v. Niaz Mohammad S.A. No. 2456 of 1967 Dt -10 -3 -1969 requires reconsideration and recommended that the writ petition be heard by a Division Bench. That is how this case has been laid before this Bench.
(2.) ONE Mata Prasad had a half share in the grove plot in dispute. He died leaving two sons Har Swarup and Shri Ram. Har Swarup died in 1936, leaving a widow Smt. Suraj Kumari, Plaintiff -Respondent. At the commencement and end of the Consolidation operations the revenue records showed that Smt. Suraj Kumari was a co -tenant of this grove plot. She instituted the present suit for partition Under Section 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The suit was contested by Sri Ram on the ground that it was barred by a family settlement and that under the personal law the Plaintiff had no share or interest in the grove plot. The trial court held that the alleged compromise did not relate to the plot in dispute. It did not operate as an estoppel to bar a suit. It was also held that in view of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the question whether the Plaintiff had any title or share in this plot could not be re -adjudicated. The consolidation entries will be given effect to according to which the Plaintiff was a co -sharer. The family pedigree showed that she would have a 1/4th share in the plot. On this finding the suit was decreed for partition of 1/4th share. This decree was affirmed in appeal as well as in second appeal. Aggrieved, the Defendant came to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE principal question raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is inapplicable to the present case and that it is governed by Section 27(2) thereof. Let us read these provisions. Section 27 says: 27. New Revenue Records. (1) As soon as may be after the final consolidation scheme has come into force, the Distt. Dy. Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village a new map, field book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area, on the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected Under Section 7, the 'Khasra -Chakbandi', the annual register prepared Under Section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall subject to such modifications and alterations, as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. (2) All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. (3) After the issue of notification Under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (1) and the provisions of Sections 28 and 33 of the UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall apply to the maintenance of such map, field -book and record of rights, as the case may be. Section 49 of the Act states: 49. Bar to Civil Court jurisdiction. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure -holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a (notification) has been issued (Under Sub -section (2) of Section 4) or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act.;