K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, it has been contended before me that opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 have no right and title in the disputed land, yet they are raising constructions over the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the consolidation authorities have observed that they have no right to look into the claim of the easementary right, yet they have granted permission to opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 for raising construction and in that way they have determined the title of the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the disputed land. It has been stressed that if the petitioner files a suit for demolition of the illegal constructions raised by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, the decision of the consolidation courts would stand in the way of the petitioner and the petitioner shall be prejudiced.
(2.) In my opinion, the apprehension entertained by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. If the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition have no right in the disputed land, merely because they have been permitted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to raise the constructions over the disputed land, would not mean that their claim and title to the disputed land has been determined by the consolidation authorities. Proceedings for permission under Section 5-C of the U.P.C.H. Act is in the nature of summary proceedings. The claims of the parties unless determined under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act, it would not stand in the way of the rightful owner whenever any action is taken by the rightful owner before a competent court. Therefore, I think that the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act would come in his way when action for demolition of the illegal constructions is taken against the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 is not correct. Since the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to determine easmentary right claimed by the parties, I think that no exception can be taken to the order passed by the consolidation authorities in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(3.) To my mind the petitioner has an alternative remedy to seek demolition of the construction raised by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, if any, over the land claimed by the petitioner. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.;