- (1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. This is a second appeal and a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order, dated 24-2- 1994, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No. 27 of 1992 and revision petition No. 46 of 1992/varanasi, abating both the cases along with the suit under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant Second appeal as well as the revisin are that the plaintiffs, Chandra Shekhar etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the defendants, before the learned trial Court for declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar, in possession of the grove in dispute, on the basis of his possession with permission of the then zamindar, concerned, pleading that due to the mistake of the Lekhpal, concerned, his name was omitted to be recorded in the revenue records. The State of U. P. contested the suit, denying the allegations, while no objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, concerned. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite trial, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide its order and decree, dated 12-8-1988. It is against this decree that the Gaon Sabha concerned preferred a Revision No. 46 of 1992 before the learned Additional Commissioner. Thereafter, aggrieved by the decree, dated 12-8- 1988, passed by the learned trial Court, the Gaon Sabha, concerned filed a restoration application on 1- 10-1988 before it, which stood rejected, vide its order, dated 21-11-1992 and it is against this order that the First Appeal No. 27 of 1992 was preferred by the Gaon Sabha, concerned before the learned Additional Commissioner who has abated both the case under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act along with the suit, vide his order, dated 24-2-1994 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant second appeal and the revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also peruse the record on file. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the appellant/revisionist contended that the learned lower appellate Court has illegally abated the appeal as well as the revision under Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act as the appeal filed before it was maintainable in law; that since the appeal had no substance and was liable to be dismissed, the learned Additional Commissioner was not justified in abating the same; that since the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, the learned Court of first appeal was not within its domain in abating the appeal alongwith the suit and the same is therefore, clearly illegal and unjustified; that the impugned order is illegal and unwarranted in law in view of the fact that once the learned trial Court passed the decree on merits and the restoration application was also rejected by it, the exercise of powers for abating the appeal along with the suit is wholly uncalled for; that in any view of the impugned order is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction which cannot be allowed to sustain and the first appeal deserve to be remanded for decision afresh, on merits, according to law. The learned DGC (R), in reply, urged that as per the provisions of Section 3 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act, the revanue Court was barred to adjudicate upon the matter inquestion and therefore, the learned Court of first appeal was perfectly justified in abating the appeal/revision along with the suit, paving the way to the consolidation Court to adjudicate upon the same and therefore, this second appeal as well as the revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant/revisionist as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to quote the provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as the same has bearing for the decision of the instant second appeal and revision : " (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-secton (2) of Section 4, the following further consequence shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates namely: (a) every procedding for the correction of records and every suit and proceding in respect of declartion of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority, shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated. '' A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of Section 5 (2) (a) of the UPCH Act clearly reveals that the learned Court of first appeal/revision was perfectly justified in rendering the impugned order, as it is a fact that the village, concerned having the land in dispute has been notified for consolidation operations and therefore, the revenue Courts are barred to adjudicate upon the matter in question and as such, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason. No illegality or material irregularity has either been committed by the learned Additional Commissioner nor is there any perversity or jurisdctional error in his impugned order and therefore, the first appeal and the revision has very rightly been abated alongwith the suit in view of the discussions, made hereinabove. The instant second appeal and the revesion petition have no force and thereofore, very richly deserve dismissal outright.
(3.) IN view of the above, the instant second appeal and the revision petition, being devoid of merits, in accordingly, dismissed and the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Courts, concerned. This order shall govern second appeal No. 16 of 1993-94/varanasi and revision petition No. 52 of 1993-94/ Varanasi. Appeal and Revision dismissed. .;