JUDGMENT

Jayant Banerji, J.

Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Respondent nos. 4 to 11 are represented by Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel.

2. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside/quashing the order dated 24.4.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2, Board of Revenue in Case No. REV/851/2015, Computerized Case No. AL2015117300851 (Bijendra Singh v. Jai Bhagwan). By means of the revisional order impugned, the Board has set aside the order dated 31.3.2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhaulana, Hapur (respondent no. 3) passed on application moved under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners on the ground that the plaint is liable to be rejected as being barred under the provisions of Section 4 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case set up in the petition is that a suit was filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 by the respondent nos. 4 to 11 against the petitioners seeking declaration as bhumidhar over Khasra plot no. 339, area 0.3160 hectare and Khasra No. 400 area 0.1900 hectare situate at Village Piplabandpur, Pargana Dasna, Tehsil Dhaulana, District Hapur. It is stated that the suit set up by the defendant-respondents was a false case as they have no right or title over the land in question. It is stated that in the plaint it was alleged that the predecessor of the plaintiff-respondents, Late Smt. Jhando Devi was gifted land by the predecessor in interest Shri Govind Ram by executing a registered instrument of gift in the year 1938. It was stated that allegation in the plaint was that the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession of the said land in dispute ever since. It was alleged in the plaint that during chakbandi proceedings as the plots in question were recorded as grove land, they were kept outside the purview of chakbandi proceedings and such a claim for declaration of rights was not required to be raised during chakbandi process and hence the suit for declaration was filed under the Act, 1950. The defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. on 26.8.2014 on which repeated time was granted to the defendant-respondents to file the objections. It is stated that the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was allowed on 31.3.2015 by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved against the order rejecting the plaint, the plaintiff-respondents filed the aforesaid revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed by the order impugned.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the settled law is that while deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. the court is required to peruse the plaint alone and no other pleading. It is contended that on bare perusal of the plaint reveals that chakbandi proceedings had taken place and that no claim was filed by the defendant-respondents in chakbandi proceedings and therefore, given the mandate of Section 4 9 of the Act, 1953, the suit was barred. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that consolidation proceedings would take into account the entire the village for which notification under Section 4 is issued and even though the plots in dispute were kept out of consolidation proceedings, given the fact that they are grove land, it was always open for the plaintiff-respondents to press their claim in proceeding under Section 9 -A(2) of the Act, 1953 which they had failed to do and hence the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31.3.2015 is justified which require no interference in revision.

4. L