T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) When a notice was issued under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act to the petitioner he filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority which was rejected. The Prescribed Authority declared 3.707 acres of irrigated land as surplus land. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the learned District Judge and urged before him that his holding was within the Ceiling Limit. This contention did not find favour with the learned District Judge who dismissed the appeal. The petitioner has now come up to this Court tinder Art. 226 of the Constitution impugning the aforesaid orders of the Prescribed Authority as also of the learned District Judge.
(2.) The facts which are not in controversy are these: the petitioner originally held 25 916 acres of cultivated land which worked out to be 21.745 acres of irrigated land. He had his holding in three villages which were brought under Consolidation Operation. In the proceedings held under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the petitioner was ultimately allotted a total area of 18.967 acres of land in those villages. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that he was entitled to hold 18.038 acres of irrigated land under the provisions of the U- P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Obviously if his holding was to be held as 18.967 acres then too be has 0.929 acres of surplus land. The Prescribed Authority has, however, declared that the petitioner has 3.707 acres of surplus land.
(3.) For the petitioner it was urged before the authorities below as also before me that though his holding initially was 21.745 acres, his holding on the date of the notice was only 18.976 acres in view of the proceedings taken under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, the Prescribed Authority should have taken note of the subsequent event and determined the surplus area of the petitioner accordingly. I find force in this contention: In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U. P. (1978 All LJ 724) a Division Bench of this Court held that when once art adjudication of the rights of the tenure-holders in respect of the land lying within the consolidation area has been made. Section 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act makes Such determination of title conclusive. Sec. 49 in a way lays down a rule of res judicata so tar as the question relating to the declaration and adjudication of the rights of tenure-holders in respect of the holdings are concerned; the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue court to question the correctness or otherwise of the entries, which are made in the revenue records as a result of the consolidation proceedings, is, therefore, completely passed on. A similar question arose in Jhandoo v. State of U. P. (1977 All WC 318) : (AIR 1977 NOC 354) . In that case the total area held by the petitioner on 8th June, 1973, the date after which a tenure holder cannot hold any land in excess of ceiling area was more than the ceiling area fixed by the Act. But as a result of the findings recorded by the consolidation Courts the area had been reduced to such an extent that nothing remained to be declared as surplus land. The finding recorded by the Consolidation Courts is binding on the petitioner. He could not agitate or challenge in any competent Civil Court or Revenue Court and urge that the area which has been reduced as a result of consolidation is incorrect and the original area should be restored to him. Examining the provisions of Section 38-B of the U- P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the State, it was held in Jhan-doos case (supra) that the effect of Section 38-B on the one hand shall be to destroy the finality of an order passed under the Consolidation of Holdings Act for purposes of determination of ceiling area yet the order remains binding on the petitioner under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Such an anomaly could not have been intended by the Legislature. The argument, therefore, that any finding or issue recorded by the consolidation authorities can be reopened does not appear to be sound. The provisions of Section 38-B came to be construed by this Court once again in Ghana Ram v. State of U. P. (1977 All WC 415) (AIR 1977 NOC 353) and it was held that it. was not correct to say that Section 38-B puts in jeopardy every judgment of any court and the; ceiling authority is not bound by it. In my view, the learned District Judge fell in error in ignoring the proceedings taken under the provisions of U. P- Consolidation of Holdings Act. Obviously the petitioner in view of those proceedings was allotted a total area of 18.967 acres of land and he did not actually hold 21.745 acres and the surplus area was therefore to be determined on the basis oi his ultimate holding which remained with him on the completion of the Consolidation Operations. In the circumstances the impugned orders of the learned District Judge and that' of the Prescribed Authority cannot be sustained.;