JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - Thus appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. The Respondents filed an objection u/s 9 Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the cosharers in the sirdari holding in dispute. The Appellant contested the claim. According to him he was the exclusive sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that Bhurey alone was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar. He dismissed the objections filed by the Respondents. On appeal the findings were reversed by it he Settlement Officer. He directed that the names pf all the parties be recorded as co-sharers. The matter was take if to the Deputy Director in revision. He allowed the, revision and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed a writ petition and succeeded. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Director and sent back the case to him for decision afresh. This time Bhurey has come up in appeal.

2. It appears that one Chuttan was recorded as Sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Appellant Bhurey on 8-11-1956 filed a suit for declaration that he was the sole sirdar of the plots in dispute and that the revenue records be corrected accordingly. The suit was filed in the civil court. On 22-12-1956 the Plaintiff Bhurey and Defendant Chuttan filed a compromise in which the claim of Plaintiff Bhurey was admitted. On 14-1-1957 the Civil Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.

3. Thereafter Chuttan appears to have died and in his place the names of Ilahi Baksh and Ali Baksh were mutated in the revenue papers. Bhurey made an application for mutation of his name on the basis of the compromise decree. In these proceedings Ilahi Baksh and Ali Baksh appear to have filed an application on 29-8-1957 giving their consent to the mutation of Bhurey. They verified this application on 17-11-1957. Thereafter the Tehsildar passed an order of mutation in favour of the Appellant on 4-8-1958. It may be stated that the present Respondents who are the sons of Ilahi Baksh filed an objection to the mutation of the name of Bhurey but that was dismissed.

4. Thereafter consolidation proceedings commenced and the question whether Bhurey alone was the sirdar of the plots in dispute was agitated before She consolidation authorities.

5. On 8-11-1956 when the civil suit was filed, a suit for declaration u/s 229-B was exclusively cognizable by a revenue court. The suit file by Bhurey was for declaration pf title. It expressed the grievance that the revenue papers be corrected. It is evident that the suit involved correction of revenue records, that is to say it expressed a grievance against the authorities maintaining the revenue records.

6. Section 229-B (3) applies to a suit for declaration of a bhumidhar or a sirdar against the State Government and Gaon Sabha. It does not specifically provide for a suit against the landholder simpliciter. Dealing with this provision a Division Bench of this Court reported in Parsottam v. Narottam 1970 AWR 312 held that the legal position appears to be that where a Plaintiff has a grievance against the village records which are maintained by the State Government and Gaon Sabha the suit will lie in revenue court u/s 229-B and any other person who disputes the Plaintiff's title shall also be impleaded as a Defendant; but if the village records support the claim of the Plaintiff, the suit will not lie u/s 229-B but will be cognizable by a civil court in case the Plaintiff's right is disputed by a third person. Here the revenue records did not support the claim of the Plaintiff. On the basis of this authority the suit was cognizable by the revenue court u/s 229-B.

7. Further Section 331 ZA and LR Act bars the civil court from taking cognizance of any suit mentioned in Col. 3 of the II Schedule or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Here the suit was for declarati