Kushar v. Ahmed Khan — 1962 DIGILAW 62 (ALL)

JUDGMENT S. D. Singh, J. - This special appeal arises out of writ petition No. 57 of 1961, which was filed by one Kushar under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, primarily against Ahmad Khan respondent no. 1. The dispute between the appellant Kushar and Ahmad Khan relates to plot no. 337/4 with an area of 1 Bigha, 13 Biswas and 12 Biswansis in village Mujasa, pargana and tahsil Malihabad in district Lucknow. One Nawab Khan was originally a tenant of this plot. Ahmad Khan, respondent No. 1, is his son. According to the allegations of Ahmad Khan, Kushar was a sub-tenant in this plot and on the abolition of Zamindari under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he became an asami. Ahmad Khan, therefore, filed a suit for declaration to that effect and for the ejectment of Kushar under Section 202 of the aforesaid Act. Kushar, on the other hand, alleged that he was an adhivasi in this plot and acquired sirdari rights under Sec. 240-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (to be referred to hereafter as the Act and that Ahmad Khan had even received compensation in respect of his bhumidhari and sirdari rights, whatever they may happen to be, in this plot under the provisions 2 of the Act as his rights vested in the State under Sec. 240-B. This suit was decreed by the Munsif and an appeal filed by Kushar against the same is said to have been stayed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. After the hearing of this appeal was stayed, Ahmad Khan filed an objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, V of 1954, before the Assistant Consolidation Officer with the prayer that his name be recorded against this plot No. 337/4 as bhumidhar and that the entry of the name of Kushar be expunged. The objection was contested on behalf of Kushar, but was allowed by the Chakbandi Officer on 8th July, 1960. He directed that the name of Ahmad Khan be recorded as Bhumidhar of the plot and that the name of Kushar be entered only as an asami. Kushar went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who dismissed the same under his order dated 22nd August, 1960. He directed that the name of Ahmad Khan be recorded as Bhumidhar of the plot and that the name of Kushar be entered only as an asami. Kushar went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who dismissed the same under his order dated 22nd August, 1960. Kushar then filed second appeal No. 43 before the Deputy Director Consolidation, who allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Chakbandi Officer, with the result that the objection filed by Ahmad Khan stood dismissed. Ahmad Khan then filed a revision before the Director of Consolidation, whose powers are exercised by the Commissioner. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and restored the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was against this order that the writ petition was filed by Kushar. The Director of Consolidation was joined as opposite-party No. 2, the State of Uttar Pradesh as opposite-party No. 3, the Settlement Officer as opposite-party no. 4 and Consolidation Officer as opposite-party No. 4 and Consolidation Officer as opposite-party No. 5. The prayer in the petition was that the order passed by the Director of Consolidation dated 12th December, 1960, be quashed by a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction. 2. The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Mulla, who found that there was no illegality in the order passed by the Director of Consolidation which needed correction, specially by the special powers conferred on this Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petition was, consequently, dismissed summarily and it is against that order that this special appeal has been filed by Kushar. 3. The Director of Consolidation has jurisdictoin to revise an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. But that section gives jurisdiction to the Director only under specified circumstances, namely where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has "(i) exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in law, or (ii) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, or (iii) acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity." 4. But that section gives jurisdiction to the Director only under specified circumstances, namely where the Deputy Director of Consolidation has "(i) exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in law, or (ii) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, or (iii) acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity." 4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that none of these circumstances existed in the case, that the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not be said to have exercised jurisdiction which was not vested in him or to have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him or to have acted illegally or with substantial irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction, and we find that the contention on behalf of the appellant is correct. The Commissioner, Lucknow Division, who was exercising the powers of the Director, did not find any such flaw in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Commissioner considered the evidence on merits. In the relevant portion of his judgment he says: - "In the present case the learned Munsif as well as the Consolidation Officer have come to concurrent findings that the grove was in fact planted about fifteen years ago. There is no doubt whatsoever that plot No. 337/4 constitutes a grove at present. The entry of the words "parwarish darakhtan" in the village records is very material and cannot be easily ignored. The fact has, therefore, to be accepted that the grove was in fact planted by Sri Ahmad Khan and Sri Kushar was merely admitted to occupation for purposes of looking after the grove. Under these circumstances Sri Kushar is at best an Asami while Sri Ahmad Khan acquired Bhurnidhari rights. As I have stated above I would not attach undue weight to the failure of Sri Ahmad Khan to file objections under Sec. 240-G." 5. The learned Commissioner thus considered the evidence on merits and without finding any flaw in respect of jurisdiction, as is indicated in Section 48 of the Act, interfered with the finding of the Deputy Director and allowed the application in revision. This he had no jurisdiction to do. His order was obviously without jurisdiction and was consequently liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari as prayed for by the appellant. 6. This he had no jurisdiction to do. His order was obviously without jurisdiction and was consequently liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari as prayed for by the appellant. 6. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to quash the order on the main ground that, according to the view taken by him, the decision in the matter relating to the rights of the parties under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, V of 1954, was not final. According to him the decision taken in these proceedings was only a tentative view which was liable to be ignored by the Civil Courts which could come to their own conclusions on the evidence and contentions that might be placed before them. If this view is correct, then there may be justification for not granting any relief to the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. But having regard to the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, V of 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), we are of opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge is not correct, and that, apart from the finality attached to the different orders passed under its different provisions, Sec. 49 specifically bars the jurisdiction of all Civil or Revenue Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in "land" or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could be or ought to have been, taken under this Act. 7. The Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was placed on the Statute book for providing for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh. The scheme of consolidation could not possibly be successful unless all disputes relating to title in respect of different holdings in a village were first adjudicated upon, and decided finally between the parties. If that were not so, even after the consolidation of holdings has taken place, rival claimants would continue to agitate matters in respect of their rights and there was likely to be fragmentation of the holdings again as the disputes may be decided one way or the other. That is the main reason why the Act makes specifics provision for the disposal of all disputes relating to questions of title in the course of the consolidation proceedings themselves. 8. A declaration in respect of the start of the consolidation proceedings is made under Sec. 4. That is the main reason why the Act makes specifics provision for the disposal of all disputes relating to questions of title in the course of the consolidation proceedings themselves. 8. A declaration in respect of the start of the consolidation proceedings is made under Sec. 4. As soon as such a declaration is made, all proceedings for correction of the records and all suits for declaration of rights and interests over land, or for possession of land, or for partition, pending before any authority or court, of original jurisdiction, appeal, reference or revision, are to be stayed under sub-cl. (i) of Cl. (b) of Section 5, and sub-Cl. (ii) of the same clause further provides that the finding of the consolidation authorities in proceedings under the Act in respect of such right or interest in the land shall be acceptable to the authority or Court before whom the proceedings or suit may be pending. In other words, all such disputes may be decided in the course of consolidation proceedings. 9. In order that the holdings may be consolidated according to the final rights of the parties. Sec. 7 provides for the revision of village map, and after that is done provision is made under Section 8 for the revision of the field-book after field to field partal and also the current annual register after it is properly tested and verified. A statement is then to be prepared showing the mistakes and disputes discovered during the course of field to field partal Notices are then served under Section 9 on all tenure-holders together with the relevant extracts from the current annual register, and also to other persons who may be interested in particular holdings, calling upon them to file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer their objections within fifteen days of the date of receipt of the notice. The intention is that the Assistant Consolidation Officer must have before him all objections relating to the entries in the annual register, so that all disputes in respect of them may be decided in the course of consolidation proceedings. The Assistant Consolidation Officer is to make an attempt to dispose of those disputes on the basis of consolidation under sub-sec. (2) of Section 9, and all those disputes which remain undecided as a result of conciliation attempts on his behalf, are to be reported to the Consolidation Officer under sub-sec. The Assistant Consolidation Officer is to make an attempt to dispose of those disputes on the basis of consolidation under sub-sec. (2) of Section 9, and all those disputes which remain undecided as a result of conciliation attempts on his behalf, are to be reported to the Consolidation Officer under sub-sec. (3) of the same section. These disputed cases are to be decided by the Consolidation Officer under Section 10 and all annual registers are thereafter to be revised and corrected on the basis of the orders which may be passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sec. 9(2) or by the Consolidation Officer under Sec. 10(1). A person aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer may appeal to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, under sub-sec. (1) of Section 11 and a right of second appeal to the Deputy Director of Consolidation is given under sub-sec. (2). This sub-sec. (2) specifically provides that the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final and not questioned in any Court of law." The only other provision in the Act in this connection is Section 48 which provides for revision by Director of Consolidation and, as has been mentioned earlier, it makes provision for revision by him only under a very limited set of circumstances. 10. There is provision in the Act for decision of all disputed questions arising in subsequent proceedings under the Act. Sec. 12-B provides for partition of joint holdings, Sec. 12-C for objections regarding partition and Sec. 12-D for amalgamation of plots of two or more tenure holders. Chap. III of the Act provides for the preparation of consolidation scheme. Sec. 13-C provides for the preparation of a statement of valuation of plots and Section 14 for preparation of statement of principles on the basis of which subsequent proceedings are to be taken for the consolidation of holdings. This statement of principles is to be published under Section 16 so as to invite objections in respect of the same, and Section 17 provides for the disposal of these objections. This statement of principles is to be published under Section 16 so as to invite objections in respect of the same, and Section 17 provides for the disposal of these objections. An appeal against the orders of the Consolidation Officer is provided for under Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 17 and the order passed in appeal "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, shall be final." The statements of principles thus finalised are to be confirmed under Sec. 18(1) and thereafter published under Section 18 (2). A statement of proposals is then prepared under Section 19 and is published under Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 20. Objections against it are invited under Section 20 and decided under Sec. 21(1). A first appeal against the orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect of these objections is provided for under Sec. 21(2) and a second appeal under Sec. 21(5), which prescribes that the decision in second appeal shall "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final and not questioned in any Court of law." Sec. 22 makes provision for an objection under Section 20 being permitted even after the period of limitation prescribed therefor, and sub-sec. (2) of Section 22 makes provision for the hearing of such objections and of appeals arising in respect of the same. The statement of proposals is then to be confirmed under Sec. 23. 11. Chap. IV of the Act then provides for the enforcement of the scheme of consolidation. Sec. 34 contains provision for the filing of objections arising out of the proceedings for the enforcement of the scheme and Sec. 35(1) provides for their hearing. Sec. 35(2) provides for the hearing of an appeal against an order passed under Section 35 (1) and the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal shall, "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be final." Sec. 47 prescribes that no appeal and no application for revision shall lie from any order passed under the provisions of this Act "except as provided by or under this Act." Sec. 48 provides, as has been mentioned earlier, for an application in revision. 12. It will thus be seen that the Act provides a complete Code for the disposal of all objections arising at different stages in the consolidation proceedings. 12. It will thus be seen that the Act provides a complete Code for the disposal of all objections arising at different stages in the consolidation proceedings. Objections relating to title are to be raised at the earliest stage, and Sec. 11-A makes a further provisions that: "No question in respect of land lying in a consolidation area, which might and ought to have been raised under Section 9 but has not been raised shall be raised or heard at any future stage of the consolidation proceedings." This section, in a way, lays down the rule of res judicata so far as the question relating to the filing of objections under Section 9, i.e., objections relating to title in respect of the holdings, are concerned. The idea behind these provisions is that all disputes between different claimants, in whatever right a title may be claimed, must be decided finally before the holdings are rearranged so as to consolidate them at one or more places, as may be prescribed under the Act. Having regard to these provisions, as also the law as specifically laid down in Section 49, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts to question the correctness or otherwise of the entries which are made in the revenue records as a result of the consolidation proceedings is completely barred. Sec. 49 states :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a declaration has been issued under Section 4, or adjudication of any other 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 respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." The provision made under this section is quite clear and, in the light of what has been said earlier, hardly needs any further comment. 13. 13. Reliance on behalf of the contesting respondents was placed upon two Single Bench decisions of this Court: Ram Lal v. The Assistant Collector of Sadabad, 1961 R.D. 310 and Kumbh Karan v. S.C. Lal Saxena, 1961 R.D. 334 in which a different view has been taken. 14. In Ram Lal v. Assistant Collector, 1961 R.D. 310 an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, Act X of 1949 (to be referred to hereafter as Act X of 1949), was moved for the cancellation of a declaration of bhumidhari rights, which had been made earlier in favour of Ram Lal, by two persons, Dori Lal and Thakur Das after consolidation proceedings had come to a close. This application under Section 12 of Act X of 1949 was allowed by the Assistant Collector and the declaration which had been granted earlier under Section 6 was cancelled and correction of village records ordered accordingly. Ram Lal filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the Additional Commissioner who held that it was not necessary to cancel the declaration of Bhumidhari rights in favour of Ram Lal but, who also, at the same time, held that Ram Lal was entitled to bhumidhari rights only in respect of one-third of the holding. The result, therefore, was that he lost his bhumidhari rights in the remaining two thirds holding as a result of the order of the Commissioner. Ram Lal then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which came up for hearing before Oak, J. in the case referred to above. It was contended before him that Section 49 of the Act barred the jurisdiction of the revenue Court to question the entries made in the record of rights and that the application under Section 12 of Act X of 1949 could not consequently be entertained by the Assistant Collector. Oak, J. however, found it difficult to see how an application under Sec 12 of Act X of 1949 could be said to be a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. He further pointed out that it was not even a matter in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation. Oak, J. however, found it difficult to see how an application under Sec 12 of Act X of 1949 could be said to be a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. He further pointed out that it was not even a matter in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation. of Holdings Act, 1953, that that Act contained no provision for cancellation of sanad of bhumidhari rights and that consequently the proceedings started by Dori Lal and Thakur Das under Section 12 of Act X of 1949 were not barred by either of the two parts of Section 49 of the Act. 15. It is certainly true that the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not contain any specific provision for an application for the cancellation of bhumidhari sanad. But there is a clear provision in the Act for the determination of all disputed questions of title An application under Section 12 of Act X of 1949 is moved on any of the grounds mentioned in Cls.(a) to (c) of sub Sec. (1) of Section 12 and the pith and substance of these grounds is that a declaration under Sec.6 of Act X of 1949 was obtained on the basis of wrong facts in respect of land in which an applicant under Sec.12 of the aforesaid Act had some right. In determining the question which was involved in the application under Section 12 of Act X of 1949, the Commissioner did hold that Ram Lal was entitled to only one-third bhumidhari rights, whereas the remaining two-thirds holding belonged to Dori Lal and Thakur Das. This was exactly the question which Dori Lal and Thakur Das could raise under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953. This question could not be raised at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings under Sec.11-A of the Act and could not, in our opinion, be raised even in any other civil or revenue Court under Section 49 aforesaid. In order to make Section 49 applicable, it is not necessary that there should have been a specific provision in the Act for an application of the nature mentioned in Section 12 of Act X of 1949 in the Consolidation of Holdings Act. If there is a provision in the Act for the determination of all disputed questions of title, that should be enough. If there is a provision in the Act for the determination of all disputed questions of title, that should be enough. Dori Lal and Thakur Das could raise the question of their two-thirds interest in the bhumidhari holding under Sec. 9; and having failed to do so, they would be debarred from raising that question in any subsequent proceeding after the termination of consolidation proceedings. 16. In Kumbh Karan v. S. C. Lal Saxena, 1961 R.D. 334 an objection was filed by one Smt. Lachmin in respect of a certain grove No. 160/5, but beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefor. Her objection was consequently dismissed as barred by time and even an appeal filed against that order could not succeed. Smt. Lachmin, therefore, filed a civil suit claiming the grove as belonging to her, but even that suit was dismissed. Writ Petition No. 176 of 1960 was then filed by her challenging the correctness of the decision under Consolidation of Holdings Act. Reliance appears to have been placed, during the hearing of that writ petition before our brother Tandon, J. on Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which reads: "(1) As soon as may be, after the consolidation scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village, a new map, field book and record of rights in respect of consolidation area, on the basis of entries in the map, field - book and the annual register, published under Sec. 11-B, and the allotment orders as finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall, subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. (2) The entries in the map, the field - book and the record of rights, prepared under sub-sec. (1) shall be final and conclusive. (3) The records prepared under sub-sec. The provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall, subject to such modifications and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. (2) The entries in the map, the field - book and the record of rights, prepared under sub-sec. (1) shall be final and conclusive. (3) The records prepared under sub-sec. ( 1) shall be maintained by the Collector in place of the records maintained previously under Section 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901." It was held by Tandon, J. that the purpose behind this section was to give effect to the consolidation scheme in the revenue papers and also to record any changes which might have become necessary on account of any transfer or succession or the like taking place in the meantime, and that an objection raising a question of title could not be enquired into in these proceedings. Referring to sub-sec. (2) of Section 27, he held that the finality and conclusiveness provided under that provision could not mean anything beyond providing that the scheme as evidenced by the entries as made in the revenue records will be final and conclusive and that the finality and conclusiveness did not, and indeed could not, confer jurisdiction to decide questions of title at that stage. It appears to us, however, that in arriving at that conclusion, the learned Judge did not keep in view the earlier provisions of the Act. Sec. 27 does provide for the preparation of new revenue records, but this is to be done only as a part of the enforcement of the scheme of consolidation, substantial provision for which is contained in Secs. 7 to 23. As has been pointed out earlier, revision of village map and field - book is to be taken up under Secs. 7 and 8, relevant extracts of these documents have to be served on all tenure-holders as well as on persons interested in the same, calling upon them to file objections under sub-sec. (1) of Section 9 and these objections have thereafter to be heard and decided in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 10 and 11. Proceedings arising out of the objections under Section 9 relate to the determination of the question of title in respect of the holdings of the tenure-holders. (1) of Section 9 and these objections have thereafter to be heard and decided in accordance with the provisions of Secs. 10 and 11. Proceedings arising out of the objections under Section 9 relate to the determination of the question of title in respect of the holdings of the tenure-holders. These objections have to be raised at that stage and that stage alone, and Sec. 11-A expressly lays down that no question in respect of land lying in a consolidated area which might and ought to have been raised under Section 9 but had not been raised, shall be raised or heard at any further stage of the consolidation proceedings. Having determined the questions of title in respect of the holdings, consolidation proceedings advance further. Statements of valuation, principles and proposals are then prepared and objections invited and disposed of in due course. It is after these proceedings are finalised that the stage of preparation of the revised revenue records under Section 27 is reached. Revenue records prepared under Section 27 have thus to embody the re-arrangement of the holdings made in the course of consolidation proceedings. It is true that the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 are to be followed in the preparation of the map and other records, but that would not necessarily import all the provisions of the Land Revenue Act to the proceedings relating to the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Sec. 40 of the Land Revenue Act, which has been referred to by Tandon, J. prescribes that all disputes regarding entries in the annual registers shall be decided on the basis of possession. It has been pointed out that since the entries in the revenue records have to be made on the basis of possession, the consolidation authorities could not have decided questions of title in preparing their records under Sec. 27. But no adjudication takes place under Sec. 27. No disputed questions, either of possession or title, are required to be decided under Sec. 27. As has been mentioned earlier, questions of title are decided under Sec. 10. That section does not import the provisions of the Land Revenue Act in the decision of disputed cases by the Consolidation Officer. But no adjudication takes place under Sec. 27. No disputed questions, either of possession or title, are required to be decided under Sec. 27. As has been mentioned earlier, questions of title are decided under Sec. 10. That section does not import the provisions of the Land Revenue Act in the decision of disputed cases by the Consolidation Officer. In preparing the final revenue records under Section 27, the consolidation authorities have only to proceed on the basis of the previous records which have already been finalised under the provisions of Chaps. II and III of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. We are unable, therefore, to agree that questions of title remain open even after the determination of all disputes under the different provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The provisions of Section 49 of the Act do not appear to have been referred to before Tandon, J. in the aforesaid case. In our opinion, this case also was not correctly decided. 17. It was then urged that, in any case, plot No. 337/4 is a grove and that the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act do not apply to groves at all. Reliance was placed upon Cl. (2) of Section 3 of the Act and a single Judge decision of this Court in writ petition No. 327 of 1960, decided on 28th August, 1961, by Nigam, J. The relevant portion of that judgment, so far as this question is concerned, reads:--- "Another lacuna pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under the amended Act groves have been excluded from consolidation operations and the plot in question i.e. 465 is a grove plot. As such also the proceedings are liable to be quashed." Cl. (2) of Section 3 defines "consolidation" to mean re-arrangement of holdings in unit among several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Then there is an explanation to this clause, which says that 'holdings' for the purpose of the Act shall not include land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued. It was, therefore, urged that groves are not included in the `holdings' for the purpose of their rearrangement under the Act and further that the provisions of the Act would not apply to groves at all. It was, therefore, urged that groves are not included in the `holdings' for the purpose of their rearrangement under the Act and further that the provisions of the Act would not apply to groves at all. We are unable to accept this further contention. The expression "land" is defined in Cl. (5) of the same section. It means "land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture, and animal husbandry........." Grove-land is, therefore, land for purposes of the Act. A "holding" under Cl. (4) (c) means "a parcel or parcels of land" and, therefore, includes a grove-land except for the purpose of consolidation, i.e., rearrangement of holdings. Thus all that is meant by the explanation is that though a glove-land is land and, therefore, may included in a holding, when the holdings of a tenure-holder are rearranged for consolidation, grove land forming part of them will be left out and only the remaining land of the holdings will be rearranged. This is not the same thing as saying that the Act does not apply to grove lands; only the provisions regarding rearrangement of land will not apply to them and the rest will apply. A declaration regarding consolidation is issued under sub-sec. (1) of Section 4 and under sub-sec. (2) of the same section it must be published in the official gazette and in each unit of the said district. The word "unit" has been defined under Cl. (11-A) of Section 3 and means a village or part thereof. If a declaration has, therefore, been made in respect of a village or villages, it will include all land within the four corners of the same, there being no exception in respect of land covered by groves. Proceedings including suits for declaration of rights, relating to land, which is under consolidation, are to be stayed under sub-Cl. (i) of Cl. (h) of Section 5, and proceedings relating to grovelands will be stayed, i.e., this provision applies to groves. Secs. 7, 8 and 9 refer to the revision of village records and do not make any exception in favour of records relating to grove-lands. Secs. 11-A and 49, which bar jurisdiction over proceedings relating to title at a subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings, or in a court, refer to "land" and obviously apply to proceedings relating to title over grovelands. Secs. 11-A and 49, which bar jurisdiction over proceedings relating to title at a subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings, or in a court, refer to "land" and obviously apply to proceedings relating to title over grovelands. Thus there are provisions in the Act which apply to grovelands and it is a mistake to say that the Act does not apply to groves. There was sense in the Legislature's excluding grovelands from the re-arrangement of holdings. The area covered by groves in a village is very small in comparison to the area covered by cultivated land; enough grove-land is not likely to be found in the block, in which a tenure-holder owning a groveland, is given his holdings in the rearrangement, to be given to him in exchange for his previously owned groveland. The essence of a groveland is trees, and a groveland could not be treated like any other land and the Legislature wisely thought that a person deprived of his groveland could not be adequately compensated by other land, and decided to leave rights and interests in grovelands intact. It is for this reason that in defining "consolidation," it excluded grovelands, with the result that while the rest of the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 remain applicable to grovelands, those relating to rearrangement of holdings will not apply to them. 18. We have, therefore, no doubt that the provisions of Secs. 7 to 11 and 11-A of the Act do apply to grovelands. Determination of title over them under Secs. 9 to 11 is final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law and Section 49 ousts the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts to entertain any suit or civil proceedings in respect of them. The view taken by Mulla, J. that the decision relating to the title of the parties under the consolidation proceedings was only a tentative one is unwarranted and it is an error to say that a civil court can ignore the decision and come to its own conclusion on the contention of the parties. The issue of certiorari could not, therefore, be refused on the ground that an alternative and adequate remedy in a civil or revenue court was open to the appellant. 19. The issue of certiorari could not, therefore, be refused on the ground that an alternative and adequate remedy in a civil or revenue court was open to the appellant. 19. The appeal is allowed, the judgment of Mulla, J. dated 6th March, 1961, is set aside, and a writ of certiorari shall be issued quashing the order of the Director of Consolidation (Commissioner, Lucknow Division), dated 12th December, 1960, by which he allowed the revision application. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14th September, 1960, shall stand restored. The appellant shall get his costs of this Court (before us as well as before Mulla, J.) from the contesting respondent No. 1.