Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

2. This is a second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree datd 30.10.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1999 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh whereby the appeal filed by Gaon Sabha Devara Tripurarpur has been allowed and judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the suit of Gaon Sabha was dismissed, has been set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has firstly submitted that when the land in question Gata No. 459 area 1.509 hectare was declared as play ground of the institution known as Kisan Prathmik Vidyalay, the Gram Sabha could not file the suit against the institution for the reason that it was land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and the institution was encroaching upon it. The second submission made by learned counsel for the appellant is that the orders passed by the consolidation authorities have attained finality and there is a statutory bar of a suit under section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and as such the trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the Gaon Sabha, but the first appellate Court has committed an illegality in decreeing the same.

4. Insofar as the first submission of learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the first appellate Court had considered the issues and found that on facts the land in question was proved to be belonging to the Gaon Sabha and the entry in the revenue record obtained by the institution in pursuance of the order of consolidation officer were illegal and could not be made.

5. The first appellate Court while considering the second submission has also non suited the defendant-appellant on the ground that it was land meant for public purpose and hence it could not be allotted by the Consolidation Officer.

The substantial question of law involved in this appeal would be :

“(1) Whether the Consolidation Officer could allot land earmarked for public purpose and vested in the Gaon Sabha?

(2) Whether the suit was barred under section 49 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953?”

6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment, reference to Section 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been made by learned counsel. Section 8-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides for preparation of a statement of principles by the assistant Consolidation Officer in consultation with the consolidation committee. The statement of principles will also contain the details of land to be earmarked for public purpose out of the land vested in Gaon Sabha under sections 117 or 117-A of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is quite apparent that the consolidation authorities has power to prepare the statement for the purpose of earmarking a land for public purpose which were vested in the Gaon Sabha.

7. The reference to Sections 117 and 117-A of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been specifically made in Section 8-A of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Section 117 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950clearly provides with respect to vesting of land in the State Government and its subsequent vesting in the Gaon Sabha by a declaration to be made by publication of notification by the State Government. Section 117(6) of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 clearly provides that the State Government may, at any time, order for resuming such land vested in Gaon Sabha back to the State Government. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that when on the date of vesting the land is vested in the State Government and a notification under Section117(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been issued by the State Govern