JAGDISH SAHAI, J. :- This special appeal is directed against the judgment of V. G. Oak, J. (as he then was) dated 20-4-1962, allowing writ petition no. 3564 of 1958.

2. The plots in dispute in this case are situated in village Hansrajpur, district Allahabad. It is under consolidation operations. Before the village was notified for consolidation operations under section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a revenue suit had been filed in the court of the Assistant Collector Ist class by Smt. Hubraji, the respondent to this special appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition mentioned above. One of the allegations of Smt. Hubraji was that she was the Bhumidhar of the disputed plots.

3. The learned Assistant Collector, therefore, remitted an issue to that effect to the Court of the Munsif (East), Allahabad for decision. The Munsif recorded his finding on that issue on 24-7-1957 holding that Smt. Hubraji was the Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute.

4. However, before the revenue suit mentioned above could be decided by the Assistant Collector Ist class, the village came under consolidation operations and the hearing of that suit was stayed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Before the Consolidation Officer an objection was made by Smt. Hubraji under Section 12 (4) of the Act that she was the Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer, referred the matter to the learned Civil Judge who referred it to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave his award, but against Smt. Hubraji and in favour of the appellant, Ram Shanker. Thereupon Smt. Hubraji filed an objection against the award of the Arbitrator before the learned Civil Judge, who upheld the award.

5. Smt. Hubraji filed writ petition no. 3564 of 1958. The writ petition was allowed by Oak, J. on the ground that there was already a decision of a competent civil court, that is, the Munsif (East) Allahabad, to the effect that Smt. Hubraji was the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute with the result that the Consolidation Officer was incompetent to refer that matter to the learned Civil Judge, who, in his turn, was incompetent to refer that matter for decision to an Arbitrator. Oak, J. held that a reference by the Consolidation Officer to the Civil Judge and by the latter to an Arbitrator could be made only if the question of title had not already been decided and inasmuch as the Munsif (East) had recorded his finding on 24-7-1957 holding that Smt. Hubraji was the Bhumidhar of the plots in dispute, no reference could have been made.

6. We find merits in the submission of Sri Gauri Shanker Srivastava that the view taken by Oak, J. is not correct. The issue was remitted in this case by the learned Assistant Collector Ist class to the learned Munsif (East) Allahabad, under section 332 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act). That provision reads :

"332. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in S. 331, if in any suit or proceedings mentioned in column 3 of Sch. II, a question is raised regarding the title of any party to the land which is the subject matter of the suit or proceedings and such question is directly and substantially in issue the court shall, unless the question has already been decided by a competent court, (frame an issue on the question of the title and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only).

Explanation - A plea regarding the title to the land which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of the revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question regarding the title to the land within the meaning of this section.

(2) The civil court, after reframing the issue, if necessary, shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it.

(3) The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit, acce