R.J.SINGH, J. - (1.) SMT . Kalawati has filed this revision against the judgment dated 26-3-98 passed by Additional Commissioner, (Administration) Kanpur Division in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on two grounds that the case of the revisionist is barred by Section 34(5) of U.P. Land Revenue Act and Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. The bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act is a mixed question of fact and law both. If no steps could be taken during consolidation proceedings by either party then their claim will be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. 1990 page 439 has held that after the de-notification of the village under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act no Civil or Revenue Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to the rights in such land which could or ought to have been taken under Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the present case the revisionist did not contest or could not take any steps during the consolidation proceedings hence the claim of the revisionist is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and the Court below has very rightly held that the case of the revisionist is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act.
(3.) IN view of the above, revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.;