Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by respondent No. 2 Budhi Narain Singh against Mohd. Siddique, the writ petitioner. The case of Budhi Narain respondent No. 2 is that his grand father Ram Autar was the tenant of the disputed land; that his father Moti Lal predeceased Ram Autar and that on the death of Ram Autar he, Budhi Narain succeeded to the property in dispute. It was alleged that the defendant-petitioner had no right or title over the property in dispute. The case of the defendant Mohd. Siddique is that the property in dispute was acquired by his father Teg Ali and that the plaintiff has no right or title. It was also alleged that the consolidation proceedings have intervened and the name of defendant Mohd. Siddique was recorded over the property in dispute and the suit is barred under section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereafter called as the 'Act'). The Trial Court by its order dated 24.7.1991 dismissed the suit. It held that the suit is barred by section 49 of the Act and that there was no document filed by the plaintiff in support of his case. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner by judgment and order dated 20.1.1993. It appears that originally the revision filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 22.12.1996. The plaintiff however filed an application or restoration which was allowed and the order dated 22.12.1996 was set aside and the revision was thereafter allowed by the Board of Revenue by the order dated 31.5.2001, which has been challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Shri M.A. Qadeer learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and S/Shri A.N. Bharagava and A.B.L. Gaur Counsel for respondents.
(3.) Shri M.A. Qadeer submitted that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue that the suit was not barred by the provisions of section 49 of the Act as the plaintiff was a minor is erroneous in law. In the written statement there was specific denial about the plaintiff being a minor during consolidation operations. It is urged that there is no material on the record to establish that the plaintiff was minor during consolidation proceedings. The second submission made is that even if the alleged finding that the suit was not barred by provisions of section 49 is accepted as correct the logical consequence of such a finding was that the matter ought to have been Namanded by the Board of Revenue to the Trial Court for consideration of the evidence on the issues involved in the suit especially when title dispute was involved.;