JUDGMENT

K.P. Singh, J.- By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment of Sri D.D. Lal, District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda dated 21.2.1984.

2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the revisional court has disregarded the directions of this court contained in Annexure "4" attached with the writ petition.

3. The Second contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional court has reviewed the order dated 11.6.1976 whereby the claim of the petitioners had been accepted and the contention of the petitioners regarding valuation had been confirmed even by this Court, hence the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revision petitions are to be heard on merits, hence the impugned order need not be interfered, with. He has also submitted that the petitioners shall get full opportunity to address the revisional court on merits of their revision petitions, hence the impugned order should not be interfered. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties the question of valuation regarding the plots of the appellants in revision could not be raised before the revisional court in proceedings arising under section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Hence the observation made in the impugned judgment is correct and there should not be any interference with the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has invited my attention to the ruling reported in 1962 A.L.J. 888, Roop Narain v. State and others, and he has contended that the question of valuation could not be raised before the revisional court. In my opinion the aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid ruling is based upon the provisions prior to the amendment of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1963 hence the contesting opposite parties cannot derive any benefit out of the aforesaid ruling.

6. The next ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties is reported in 1978 A.L.J. 777, Beni Madho Dubey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, wherein it has been indicated that in view of the provisions the question of valuation of the plots was beyond jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in an appeal pending before him arising out of allotment proceedings. Relying upon the dictum of law laid down in the aforesaid ruling the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has justified the impugned order and the complained observation by the petitioners which is to the following effect :-

""Uprokt vivechan se spasht hai ki maliyat mamley na to nigraniyon me uthaye gaye na kisi anya vidhik prakaran dwara hi aisa huwa. Atah maliyat ke sambandh me diya gaya nirdesh nyayochit nahin paratit hota."

7. In my opinion the revisional court in its order dated 21.2.1984 is not quite correct in making complained observations extracted above.

8. It is well known by now that in proceedings under Section 20 of U.P.C.H. Act a tenure holder can object about the correctness or incorrectness of the valuation of his plots but if he gets plots of other tenure-holders he can demonstrate that the valuation of those plots was not in accordance with law and needed change or modification. It appears that this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the revisional court in the impugned order. The attention of the revisional court is directed to the provisions of Section 21 (4) of the U.P.C.H. Act wherein wide powers vest in the consolidation authorities to refuse the provisional consolidation scheme which includes the valuation of plots in the unit. Therefore, I think that the revisional court has not correctly made the extracted observation in the impugned order. The attention of the revisional court is also directed to the