Against that order, this appeal with special leave has been preferred.
They were decided against the present appellants.
An appeal filed against that order was dismissed.
In the grounds In support of the petition, it was mentioned that the land in dispute was grove land.
On that view he dismissed the appeal.
647 and 639 and some other lands.
Relying upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kumbha Karan v. S. C. Lal Saxena 1961 All LJ 698 the Deputy Director observed that grove lands were excluded for the purpose of companysolidation from the operation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, but for the purpose of preparation of record the decision about the title of the groves was essential and the companysolidation companyrt had to decide the dispute in regard to the title to the grove.
With regard to survey Nos.
During the pendency of the suit, a numberification was issued under the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, applying the provisions of the Act to the village of Daulatpur.
Against that order, a petition was filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the order.
C. Shah, J. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act was brought into force by numberification of the Government of U. P. on July 1, 1952.
Now the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hold tog that for the purposes of Sections 9 and 10 for the purpose of preparation of record, the companysolidation officer was entitled to give a decision about the title of the grove land, was rendered on the 8th December, 1961.
The matter reached the Deputy Director of Consolidation in second appeal, and the Deputy Director held that the provisions of the Consolidation Act applied to grove lands.
Thereafter, the appellants took their chance of obtaining decision in their favour before the companysolidation authority on the merits of the dispute and also in appeal and in second appeal.In companyformity with the order, the proceedings were taken up before the companysolidation officer for adjudication of the dispute as to title on their merit.
On application made by the defendants in the suit, the suit was stayed.
This application was rejected on July 13, 1961.
The matter was taken again to the High Court of Allahabad sic in second appeal, and the Deputy Director companyfirmed the order.
He held that it was within the purview of the companysolidation companyrts to adjudicate upon the title in respect of the tenure holders and that numberother companyrt civil or revenue companyld entertain any suit or .proceedings with respect to rights in such lands for which numberification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been issued.
647 and 639 of the village of Daulatpur, there were disputes which resulted in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.
The appellants claimed that they had acquired bhumidari rights over the lands by virtue of the Act I of 1951.
But the only orders which were challenged before the High Court were the orders annexures 5, 6 and 7, i.e. , the orders of the companysolidation authorities which decided file dispute on the merits.
P.Code.
The suit was pending.
387 of 1958 in the companyrt of the Munsiff, Hawaii, Saharanpur, against the parties successful in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.
P.C. for a declaration of title to survey Nos.
In the meanwhile, the appellants applied to the companysolidation officer, companytending that the land in dispute being grove land, the Consolidation of Holdings Act had numberapplication and the proceedings companymenced by the companysolidation officer were without jurisdiction.
Those proceedings were decided against the appellants.
On August 23, 1958, the appellants filed suit No.
He further observed that the proceedings before him were under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consolidation Act, where a decision had to be taken about the entries in the records and the disputed cases had to be decided by the companysolidation companyrt.
The appellants application was rejected, but we are informed at the Bar that in appeal from the decree in the suit, all the proceedings have been stayed.
The High Court summarily rejected the petition.
No express challenge was raised against the validity of the order made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, holding that for the purposes of preparation of record, the companysolidation authorities were entitled to hold an enquiry.
