Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff opposite parties sued for an injunction that the Defendants be directed to restore the Kachchi Nali in dispute. The Defendants pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. These two issues were treated as preliminary issues and were answered in the negative. Aggrieved, the Defendants went up in revision. The finding was affirmed. Aggrieved, the Defendants have come to this Court in revision.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants invited my attention to Section 8 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act under which the District Deputy Director of Consolidation is required to determine the valuation of each plot after taking into consideration the availability of irrigation facilities, if any. On this basis it was argued that the question whether any irrigation facilities were available to the Plaintiff's plot was liable to be determined in consolidation proceedings. I am unable to agree. Clause (a) of Section 8(1) requires the determination of the valuation of a plot after taking into consideration its productivity, location and availability of irrigation facilities, if any. It does not require the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to adjudicate upon the dispute whether a tenure holder. is entitled to irrigation facilities for his particular plot. Such a dispute is outside the purview of consolidation proceedings. The suit was not barred by Section 49.
(3.) THE revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.;