R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) FROM the affidavits and counter-affidavit filed it is clear that plot No. 790 was out of consolidation till publication of the provisional consolidation scheme under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Against the decision of objections by the Consolidation Officer in allotment of chak proceedings, the petitioner as well as opposite parties filed appeals before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In appeal, on the request made by the opposite-parties, the appellate court directed valuation of plot No. 790 and brought it within the purview of the allotment proceedings. He allotted the same to opposite-parties Nos. 4 and 5 and also provided a chak road for the convenience of the opposite party No. 6. The petitioner's revision against this order failed, with the result that he was forced to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
(2.) SECTION 8 (1) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act empowers the Deputy Director of Consolidation after the revision of maps under SECTION 7 to determine the valuation of each plot in consultation with the Consolidation Committee after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any. Section 9 (a) of the Act permits a tenure-holder to dispute the mistakes in revision of the field book, preparation of current annual register and determination of valuation and shares in joint holdings. Section 11-A of the Act creates a bar in respect of claims to land, partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots, trees, wells etc. relating to consolidation area. It further provides that if an objection regarding these matters could have been taken and were not taken then a tenure-holder shall be debarred from raising it at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings.
(3.) IN view of these provisions the question of valuation of plot No. 790 was beyond the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in an appeal pending before him arising out of allotment proceedings. Moreover, the plot, because of its nature, presumably abadi area non-agriculture holdings was declared to be out of consolidation. The appellate court acted without jurisdiction in bringing it in the fold of consolidation and directing its valuation to be done. The learned counsel for the respondents realising the difficulty tried to persuade that the orders passed by the appellate court were imminently just and were not liable to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The argument has absolutely no merit. From the map filed along with the counter-affidavit and also produced by the petitioner at the time of the hearing it is apparent that plot No. 791 is situated in front of plot No. 791 in which a house and Sahan of the petitioner are situated. Because of the situation of the plot the petitioner had earlier exchanged this plot from another tenure-holder after surrendering double of the area.;