ORDER

Hari Swarup, J. - Rishal Singh has filed this petition against the order of the Board of Revenue dismissing the Plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit filed by him u/s 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act for partition of the holding.

2. The holding which is now the subject matter of dispute emerged out as a result of consolidation proceedings. The Petitioner claimed to have a one-third share in the holding along with Kashiram and Raj Singh, opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5. In the basic year the plots the valuation of which was taken into consideration for the formation of the present holding were entered in the names of Rishal Singh, Kashiram and Bharat Singh father of Raj Singh. The shares of the parties were mention-en as one-third each. According to the Petitioner no party filed any objections u/s 9 of the Act and final orders were passed by the Asstt. Consolidation Officer u/s 9-A(1)(ii) and the entry was maintained. The revised annual returns on the basis of the order were prepared u/s 10 of the Act and thereafter the allotment of chaks was made. The entries were made accordingly u/s 27 of the Act in the revenue records and consequent forms Nos. 25 and 45 were issued to the parties including the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter filed the suit giving rise to these proceedings. The Defendants took the defence in the suit that the entries made during consolidation proceedings were not legally correct as the Plaintiff had no right in the land in dispute. Their case was that the lease of the plots in 1942 was although executed in favour of the Plaintiff and the two Defendants who are brothers, the Plaintiff was really not the tenureholder and his name had been mentioned only for consolidation. They also pleaded that they were in adverse possession and the Plaintiff had lost rights if he had any much before the consolidation proceedings had commenced.

3. The trial court held that the defence of the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 was barred by Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and that the matter was no more open to adjudication. It, therefore, decreed the suit.

4. The Defendants we at up in appeal and the appeal was allowed by the Addl. Collector (Judicial) Meerut. He went into the merits of the rights of the parties as they existed oat the date the consolidation proceedings started and came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had no right in the plots the valuation of which was taken into consideration for the allotment of the chak in favour of the parties. The Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue but the appeal was also dismissed.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Board of Revenue has taken an erroneous view of law in holding that the revenue court had jurisdiction to go behind the recorded determination rights as made by the consolidation authorities. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contends that the Addl. Collector who decided the appeal had no jurisdiction to decide the same but this point has not been considered by the Board of Revenue and the Petitioner's claim that he argued it before the Board of Revenue is disputed by the other side. This point need not be decided in these proceedings as the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the first point has force and the petition is entitled to succeed on that ground alone.

6. Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force the declaration of adjudication of rights of tenureholders in respect of land lying within an area for which a notification has been issued u/s 4 or adjudication of any right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no civil or revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with r