G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS an application filed by the Respondents for dismissing the appeal as having abated as the legal representatives of Appellant No. 4 Hukmi and of Appellant No. 8 Raghubir Singh, who have died, have not been brought on the record. The application is opposed by the Appellants, mainly, on the ground that a notification Under Section 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act has been published in respect of the village in which the plots in dispute are situate and therefore, the entire appeal has abated Under Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and that it is unnecessary to decide whether the entire appeal or any part of it has abated Under Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THIS second appeal has arisen out of objections filed Under Section 240 -C of the UPZA and LR Act. The Appellants claimed to be Adhivasis of different plots while the Respondents' claim was that they were the landholders and the Appellants were merely Asamis. The trial court held that the Appellants were Adhivasis of all the plots in dispute. Against the order of the trial court, the Respondents filed an appeal. The lower appellate court held that the Appellants were Adhivasis of plots Nos. 646 and 648 only and were Asamis of all the remaining plots. Against the judgment of the lower appellate court, this appeal was filed in respect of all the plots of which the Appellants were held to be Asamis. A cross -objection was filed by the Respondents in respect of plots Nos. 646 and 648, claiming that Appellants Raghubir Singh, Chaturbhuj Singh and Shrimati Shanti Devi were not Adhivasis but were Asamis of these plots. Raghubir Singh was interested in plots Nos. 653, 646 and 618. He claimed to be joint Adhivasi of these plots with Chaturbhuj Singh Appellant No. 9 and Shrimati Shanti Devi Appellant No. 10. The lower appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court that Raghubir Singh, Chaturbhuj Singh and Shrimati Shanti Devi were Adhivasis of plots Nos. 646 and 648 but held that they were Asamis of plot No. 653. It is not disputed that Hukmi Appellant No. 4 died on 16 -12 -1964 and that his sole legal representative is on the record as Respondent No. 5. Therefore, the death of Hukmi does not result in any abatement of the appeal. Raghubir Singh Appellant No. 8 died on 18 -7 -1964 and admittedly, his legal representatives have not been brought on the record. The notification Under Section 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act was published on 2 -10 -1965, after the death of Raghubir Singh.
(3.) NOW the question is whether this appeal and the proceedings, out of which it arises, can be abated Under Section 5. The relevant words of Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act are - - every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration 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 whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated. The language of Section 5 shows that only suits and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in land, which has come under consolidation, abate under this section. Proceedings Under Chapter IX -A of the UP ZA and LR Act are proceedings for the assessment of compensation to be paid to the landholder for the acquisition of the landholder's rights in lands occupied by Adhivasis. In Maqbool Raza v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1967 AWR 803 FB it was observed: The only purpose for which this Chapter was enacted was to provide for the acquisition of the rights of a landholder and for payment of compensation to him. They are clearly not proceedings for declaration or adjudication of any right or interest in land. It is well settled that only those proceedings can be abated Under Section 5 which can thereafter betaken before the consolidation authorities. There can be little doubt that proceedings for assessment of compensation, as contemplated in Ch. IX -A of the Zamindari Abolition Act, cannot be taken under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. Further, the scheme of Ch. IX -A also indicates that a question such as the one which arises in the present appeal and which arose in the proceedings in the courts below cannot be decided by the consolidation authorities. The question, which actually arose for decision in this case, was whether the land, in respect of which proceedings were being taken, was occupied by Adhivasis or not. Even if consolidation proceedings had been pending at the time when these proceedings were started, the question arising in this case could not have been referred to the consolidation authorities. Section 240 -HH of the UP ZA Act provides that, where consolidation operations are already going on under the provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the amendment of 1958 and a question of title arises in an objection Under Section 240 -G of the UP ZA Act, the question shall be referred to the Civil Judge for reference to an arbitrator and the reference shall be governed by the provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. This implies that, if no consolidation operations are going on or if such operations are going on but under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act alter its amendment in 1958 or if the question which arises is not a question of title, then the question will be decided in accordance with the provisions of Ch. IX -A of the UP ZA Act. For all these reasons, I am of opinion that the present proceedings Under Chapter IX -A of the UP ZA Act do not abate Under Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.;