Lakshmi Prasad Nigam, J. - (1.)By an objection dated 19 -1 -1956 Under Sec. 12 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act the Appellant claimed Sirdari rights in the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer referred the case to the Civil Judge, Unnao purporting to act Under Sec. 12(4) of the Act. This reference was made prior to the commencement of UP Act XVI of 1956. The Appellant's writ petition for quashing the said reference on the ground that the sirdari rights claimed by him did not raise a question of title and as such, there could be no valid reference Under Sec. 12(4) has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence, the objector has come in special appeal.
(2.)We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant at some length. The learned Counsel places strong reliance on the case of Jai Nand v/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1962 AWR 336 for the contention that in view of the provision of Sec. 332 -A of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act there could be no reference Under Sec. 12(4) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act of a dispute pertaining to sirdari rights even prior to the commencement of UP Act XVI of 1957. By Sec. 18 of UP Act XVI of 1957 Sec. 36 -A is inserted in the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act to provide that a dispute regarding sirdari right shall not be deemed to raise a question of title. Then we have a saving clause in Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957 to say:
Nothing in Sec. 18 shall affect the validity, invalidity, effect or consequence of anything already done or suffered...or any jurisdiction already exercised and any proceeding referred to any Civil judge prior to commencement of this Act, shall continue to be heard by the appropriate authority.

(3.)Relying on the aforesaid saving clause in UP Act XVI of 1957 the learned single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid Division Bench case relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant and has held that the reference in the instant case was saved by Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957. We see nothing wrong in this decision of the learned single Judge. No doubt there are some observations in that Division Bench case which lend support to the contention that even prior to the amendment of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act by UP Act XVI of 1957 there could be no reference of a dispute regarding sirdari rights. But the fact remains that the effect of Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957 was neither considered nor required to be considered in that Division Bench Case. It may here be mentioned that the said case arose out of an order passed by the consolidation authorities refusing to make a reference Under Sec. 12(4) in case of a dispute regarding sirdari rights on the ground that it did not raise a question of title. That order refusing to refer Under Sec. 12(4) was passed by the Consolidation Officer prior to the commencement of UP Act XVI of 1957. Thus, the contention raised before the High Court was that a reference should have been made and it was not required to be made only since after the enactment of Sec. 36 -A. This contention was repelled by the Division Bench relying on the provisions of Sec. 332A of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It shall thus be seen that there arose no occasion in that case for the consideration of the effect of Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957.
In the case before us the main question for determination is whether or not in view of Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957 a reference made Under Sec. 12(4) prior to the commencement of the said Act is to continue to be heard by the appropriate authority. The answer is obviously in the affirmative having regard to the plain language of Sec. 21 of UP Act XVI of 1957.