The provisions of sections 49 and 11-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bar civil courts from entertaining suits relating to land rights in areas where consolidation proceedings are ongoing. A party who fails to raise objections regarding land rights before the consolidation authorities within the prescribed limitation period is precluded from asserting those claims in a civil court.

B. D. Agarwal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri D. N. Shukla, Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh dated March 28, 1962.

2. The dispute is with respect to a portion of plot no. 611 situate in village Raipur district Azamgarh. The area of the land involved in controversy is 16-Rep. (Suppl.) 200 links only. The plaintiff has his house north faced in village Raipur. The land in question lies towards the south of this house. There are certain trees also standing on this land including the bamboo clumps. The plaintiffs brought the suit on July 10, 1958 alleging that this land constitutes his Sahen and he has been making use thereof for miscellaneous agriculturcal purposes. It was asserted that the trees also belong to him. The defendants 1 to 4 obtained a deed of sale from the defendant no. 5 on July 15, 1957 in respect of this land and the trees existing thereon. The defendant no. 5 was not competent to make transfer since he had no right, title or interest. On or about July 15, 1957 the defendants 1 to 4 interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and hence the suit claiming the relief of cancellation of the aforesaid deed of sale and perpetual injunction. In the alternative possession has also been claimed. The defendant 1 to 4 resisted the suit refuting that the land was held by the plaintiff as his Sahen at any stage. It was pleaded that the land constitutes a grove and it was held as such by the defendant no. 5 who became bhumidhar thereof on the date of vesting under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and thereafter made sale to the contesting defendants for consideration by a registered instrument. The defendants had stepped into possession by virtue of this purchase. The Sahen of the plaintiff, it was asserted, lies to the north of his house and in part towards the east thereof, and not towards south.

The trial court dismissed the suit on March 14, 1961 being of the view that the land in question did not constitute the plaintiffs' Sahen and that the defendants 1 to 4 had acquired valid title by the purchase made by them on July 15, 1957 from the defendant no. 5. The decree passed by the trial court was, however, reversed in appeal on March 28, 1962.

3. Aggrieved the defendants 1 to 4 preferred this second appeal on August 1, 1962. This was admitted at the preliminary hearing on March 9, 1976.

4. Sri U. K. Misra, learned counsel for the appellants contended that section 49, U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars the suit giving rise to this appeal. It is argued that there was notification of the State Government under section 4 (i) of this Act concerning this aera. In the khatauni of the period 1363-65 F. Paltu- the defendant no. 5 (the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants) is recorded as Bhumidhar of the disputed land vide Ex A-4. Subsequent to the purchase made by the defendants 1 to 4 by the registered deed of sale dated July 15, 1967 corresponding to 1375 F. the defendants were mutated in the revenue papers over this land by the order of the Assistant Collector passed on May 31, 1958 vide Ex A-1. In view of the consolidation operations having commenced in the area, it was open to the plaintiff, it is argued, to have raised objections within the period specified under section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff filed objections purporting to be under this provision on August 31. 1976. This was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on June 21, 1977 under section 9-A of the Act on the ground that the same was beyond limitation and the delay had not been satisfactorily accounted for. It was observed that the plaintiff-objector could not plead in the circumstances of lack of kaowledge of the proceedings. The plaintiff preferred revision under section 48 of the Act against this order but that also was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on October 5, 1977. It was found that the not