SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- This appeal arises out of a proceeding for partition of a holding held by the consolidation authorities.

2. Admittedly, the appellant held one third share in the holding in dispute; one third was held by respondents Nos. three and four while the remaining one third was held by Appellants Nos. 2 to 5. The consolidation authorities proceeded to partition this holding in accordance with the admitted shares, after ignoring a decree dated 9th March, 1956, passed by the civil court in a suit (No. 892 of 1955) filed under Section 176 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the division of this very holding. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that since the civil court decree had not been enforced inasmuch as the final decree had not been passed by the revenue court the same had no binding effect. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) confirmed the actual division of the holding made by the Consolidation Officer.

3. Aggrieved appellant No. 1 instituted a writ petition in this Court. The principal argument raised before the learned Single Judge was that the previous partition decree was binding on the parties. This plea was repelled and the writ petition was dismissed.

4. In present appeal, Mr. V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the civil court decree was binding. In 1955, when the suit for partition under Section 176 of the Act was instituted the matter was governed by Sections 176 to 182-B of the Act. Dealing with these provisions a Division Bench of this Court in Nathu Singh v. Dular Singh, 1971 RD 11 held that the prescribed procedure was that a suit for partition was to be instituted in a civil court. The civil court was to grant a preliminary decree indicating the shares of the parties in the holding in dispute. After that its jurisdiction was exhausted; and the matter had to be sent to the Collector for drawing up a final decree. It was held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass the final partition decree, that was a matter falling entirely within the jurisdiction of the Collector.

5. In the present case we find that soon after the institution of the suit in the civil court the parties filed a compromise praying that the parties to the suit may be allotted shares in accordance with that compromise. The compromise mentioned the plots which the parties agreed to be allotted to each branch; and it appears that the civil court passed a decree in terms of the compromise. It is apparent that the matter was never sent to the Collector for final partition of the holding or separation of the shares and for passing a decree in terms of the compromise application. In view of the Division Bench decision in Nathu Singh's case, 1971 RD 11 the decree passed by the Civil Court will be without jurisdiction and so not operative or binding between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, relied upon a Full Bench decision in Jogodishury Debea v. Kailash Chundra Lahiry, (1897) ILR 24 Cal 725 (FB) and urged that where no division of revenue is sought for, the civil court can grant a decree for partition and a decree for possession in respect of a share. Reliance was also placed upon Radha Kishun v. Bhola Chaudhuri, AIR 1934 Pat 365 where it was held that Section 54, Civil Procedure Code does not apply to a suit for partition of a revenue paying estate when no separate allotment of revenue is asked for. The principle laid down in these decisions is that if the suit did not involve the separation of the land revenue the matter need not go to the Collector and such a suit for partition would be exclusively decided by the civil court. Assuming that this is the correct situation in law, the position in the present case is different. The suit under Section 176 of the Act is governed by the statutory provisions contained in Sections 176 to 182-B. Section 182-B provides :

"Subject to the provisions of Sect