G. C. MATHUR, J. :- The land in dispute in these writ petitions appertains to the Basudha Math and the Math is the tenure holder of all the plots. This fact is admitted by all parties. Formerly one Mahant Ajodhya Das was the Mahant of this Math. After his death there was a dispute between Ram Sunder Das respondent No. 3 and Dwarka Das regarding the Mahantship of this Math. It was held in the litigation that followed the respondent No. 3 was not the Chela of Ajodhya Das and that Dwarka Das was the successor of Ajodhya Das. Dwarka Das died on October 18, 1963. When the villages in which the plots in dispute are situated were brought under consolidation respondent No. 3 filed objections under Section 9(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming himself to be the Mahant of the Math after the death of Mahant Dwarka Das and prayed that his name be substituted in place of Mahant Dwarka Das as the Mahant of the Math. The petitioner Rama Kant Das who also claims to be the Mahant of the Math as successor of Mahant Dwarka Das filed objections to the objections of respondent No. 3. The Consolidation Officer held that respondent No. 3 and not the petitioner was the successor to Mahant Dwarka Das and consequently directed that the name of respondent No. 3 be recorded as Sarbarkar of the Math in place of Mahant Dwarka Das. Against the orders of the Consolidation Officer the petitioner filed appeals before the Settlement Officer. (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the Consolidation authorities were not competent to decide the question as to who was the Mahant or Manager of the Math. He accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer. The respondent No. 3 thereupon filed applications in revision before the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director has taken the view that the Consolidation Authorities had the jurisdiction to decide the question of Mahantship. On merits he confirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Accordingly he allowed all the revisions, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer and restored that of the Consolidation Officer. It is against these orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that these writ petitions are being filed.

2. The only question which arises for determination in these writ petitions is whether the Consolidation Authorities are competent or not to decide the question as to who is the Mahant or Sarbarkar of a Math when admittedly the Math is the tenure-holder and there is no dispute regarding the rights of tenure-holders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Syed Ashfaq Husain v. Waqf Alal Nafs, 1967 All LJ 336. In this case the question which arose for consideration was whether a suit filed in respect of the compensation and rehabilitation bonds payable on the abolition of zamindari could be abated under Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this connection the Bench examined the scope of the Consolidation of Holdings Act with a view to determine the extent to which the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted by the Act. The Bench observed:

"We have analysed all the relevant provisions of the Act including the long title and the preamble. The result of the analysis is that it becomes clear that it is only in respect of agricultural land the rights of Bhumidhars, sirdars and Assamis that the consolidation authorities adjudicate. They are not concerned with any other rights or any other land or any other property ..............."

A little earlier the Bench observed:

"From these provisions also it clearly follows that it is only the tenure-holder's right in respect of the agricultural land which are the subject-matter of decision before the Consolidation authorities."

In view of this finding the Bench held that the Consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the question relating to compensation and rehabilitation bonds and t