R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) BEING of opinion that there was conflict in Rama v. State of U.P.,, 1971 RD 520 and Shambhu v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh, 195 AWC 469 the learned single Judge referred this petition to a larger Bench for resolving the conflict. Admittedly land in dispute was recorded as Banjar in basic year records prepared under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Both the Petitioner and opposite parties claimed that entry was incorrect. According to Petitioner they were the owners of the trees; whereas opposite parties claimed that they were Bhumidhars of the grove as they had planted trees over the land in dispute with the permission of the Zamindars No contest was put in by Gaon Sabha Rather Pradhan appeared before the Consolidation Officer and admitted that the land being in the nature of grove Gaoi - Sabha had no concern with it. Consolidation Officer, however, allowed objection of the Petitioners and declared Petitioners to be owners of the trees. Against this order an appeal was filed before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by opposite parties. Gaon Sabha did not file any appeal. Appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer was set aside. The appellate authority directed that basic year entry in favor of Gaon Sabha should be maintained. Consequently both the Petitioners and the opposite parties filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed. Both authorities found that claims of neither party was substantiated. It was held that no material was brought on record which could establish that it was grove before date of vesting. The entry in 1364F of planting of trees by petitioner was held insufficient to confer any right on him. It was further held that since claim of Petitioner was confined to trees it could not be ad undeceived upon by consolidation authorities It is this aspect which has been referred by the learned Single judge. But prior to adverting to it, it is necessary to mention that Petitioners River claimed to be Grove holders. They claimed ownership over trees only. The allegation in paragraph 2 of writ petition that Petitioners claimed the land to be grove appears to be misleading, as it is not borne out by recital of case of parties in order of any of the consolidation authorities. And Petitioners have not cared to support it by filing a copy of the objection. The case of Petitioners, therefore, was of trees standing over Banjar land.
(2.) REVERTING to the short question which calls for adjudication is the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities to decide ownership of trees on a Banjar land or to be more precise, trees standing on land other than the land which forms part of a holding. Answer to it shall depend on proper understanding of meaning of words ' land holding ' and ' Banjar land '. Land has been defined by Consolidation Act to mean, "Land' means land held or occupied or purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including Pisciculture and Poultry farming) and includes (i) The site, being part of holding, of a house or other similar structure, and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the buildings. It has been defined in Zamindari Abolition Act as under: ' Land ' (except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chapter VII) means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming. A comparison of the two definitions indicates that the principal part of the definition in the Consolidation of Holdings Act has been borrowed from Zamindari Abolition Act, but it has been expanded and for the purposes of Consolidation Act even site for the house or well or trees standing over a plot has been included. But the trees etc. must exist on a plot which forms pan of a holding. Holding under clauses (4C) of Consolidation Act means a parcel or parcels of land held Under one tenure by a tenure holder singly or jointly with other tenure -holder. Therefore, Land can be holding Under Consolidation Act only it it is held by tenure holder that is a Bhumidhari, Sirdari or Asami. If Ban ar land can be considered to be land within meaning of Clause (3) of Section 3 of the Act extracted earlier then only it can be held by a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami and shall be covered in the definition of holding. Banjar land has not been defined in the Act. But Clause (12) of Section 3 of Consolidation Act adopts meaning of word and expression not defined in the Act but used or defied in Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There is no definition of Baniar land in Zamindari Abolition Act, Hut paragraph 124A of Land Records Manual framed in pursuance of Land Revenue Act prescribing provision lord making entry in annual register or field book provides as under: (v) other wise barren. Note: Sub -class (v) will include land which cannot be brought under cultivation without incurring a high cost. This indicates that Banjar land is that land which is unfit for cultivation and cannot be brought under cultivation, without incurring heavy expenditure. It is therefore, not land as defined in the Act. And if it is not land it could not be holding. Therefore, the Consolidation authorities could not adjudicate upon right or title to Banjar land. This is what was held in Rama's case (Supra). But Ban is land may be brought under cultivation or trees may be planted over it. If it is brought under cultivation then it stands converted into land as defined in ZA and LR Act or Consolidation of Holdings Act It may then become holding and consolidation authorities may assume jurisdiction. They may also have jurisdiction where Banjar land was let out for converting it into land may be within few years for which remission or total exemption in revenue was granted. In absence of these circumstances the Consolidation authorities cannot assume jurisdiction in respect of Banjar land. Similarly if trees are planted on a Banjar land or it is let out for planting trees and the trees standing over it or after planting were such in number as to exclude cultivation when fully grown then it becomes grove land. And once Banjar land becomes grove land the Consolidation authorities can decide objections in their regard. It was held so and in our opinion rightly in Shambhu's case (Supra). Grove land has not been defined in ZA Act or Consolidation Act. It was defined in U.P. Tenancy Act. It has been adopted is these Acts. It is extracted below: grove -land " means any specific piece of land in a mahal or mahals having trees planted thereon in such numbers that they preclude or when full grown, will preclude, the land or any considerable portion thereof from being used primarily for any other purpose, and the trees on such land constitute a grove. Any land, therefore, having trees in such number as to preclude cultivation becomes grove -land. And once a land banjar or other wise, becomes grove land the Consolidation authorities shall have jurisdiction to decide. In cases where right or title is claimed on trees standing over land what has to be decided is if the trees standing over it were such in number that it became grove land. If the finding is in the affirmative the Consolidation authorities shall have jurisdiction to decide right or claim of parties. If the finding is in negative the objection has to be dismissed and parties directed to seek their remedy in Civil Courts. In view of what has been stated above there appears no conflict in the two decisions which appear to have been correctly decided on their own facts. The petition may now be listed before Hon'ble Single Judge.;