JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - By means of this application it has been prayed by the Respondents that inasmuch as a dispute is pending between the parties before the consolidation authorities in respect of the Bhumidhari plots falling in the villages mentioned in the plaint giving rise to this appeal, the hearing of the present appeal be stayed under the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Mr. Mohammad Hussain, who has appeared for the Applicant, places reliance upon Kushar v. Ahmad Khan 1962 AWR 391, Dalel v. Baroo 1963 AWR 230 FB, Smt. Ram Kuer v. Jangi 1964 ALJ 718 and Ram Lal v. Assistant Collector, Sadabad, District Mathura 1966 AWR 140. 3. This application is opposed by Sri Harish Chandra, who contends that the reliefs sought in this case cannot be granted by the consolidation authorities with the result that Section 5 of the Act would not apply and the hearing of the appeal cannot be stayed. 4. This arises out of suit No. 11 of 1948. The reliefs claimed in the plaint read: (A) A decree for proprietary and actual possession in respect of 3/4th shares of the property made waqf and the property given in para 2 of this plaint may be passed in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant or the proper Defendant. (B) Any other relief which may be consonant with justice and be admissible on the merits of the case may be granted to the Plaintiff against the Defendants and the mesne profits during the pendency of the suit be made payable on the payment of court fee. (C) The cost of the suit may be made payable by the Defendants. The case set up in the plaint is that Khwaja Basit Husain, the brother of the Plaintiff, Khwaja Syed Kazim Husain Gailani, was the owner of certain Zamindari property in respect of which the Respondent No. 2, who was a young and newly married wife of Khwaja Basit Husain got the latter to make waqf with a view to defeat the right of inheritance of the Plaintiff. It was also pleaded that for several reasons the waqf was illegal and ineffective. The suit was contested on several pleas. The exact nature of the pleadings of the parties would appear from the issues framed in the suit, which read: 1. It was also pleaded that for several reasons the waqf was illegal and ineffective. The suit was contested on several pleas. The exact nature of the pleadings of the parties would appear from the issues framed in the suit, which read: 1. Is the waqf deed invalid for any of the reasons alleged in para 8 of the plaint? 2. Does there obtain any custom set up in para 25 of the written statement? 3. (a) Whether any portion of the dower debt of Defendant No. 2 remains unpaid? (b) If so, to what effect? 4. To what relief is Plaintiff entitled? The suit was dismissed with cost by the learned Civil Judge, Hardoi, who tried it and this appeal is directed against that decree. 5. Admittedly the Zamindari property in respect of which the suit was filed now vests in the State of U.P. The dispute between the parties would, therefore, now be confined only to the compensation amount in respect of this property, in deposit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Hardoi and the rehabilitation bonds which are with the Compensation Officer, Hardoi. We are informed that in the Zamindari property to which the suit,, giving rise to this appeal, related, were situated some Sir and Khudkasht plots also belonging to Khwaja. Basit Husain or the waqf and there is dispute between the parties in respect of those plots. However, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that those plots are not directly involved in the present appeal. 6. Mr. Mohd. Husain contends that any dispute with regard to Bhumidhari and Sirdari plots can be adjudicated upon only by the forums provided by the Act and not in civil courts and that inasmuch as the Sir and Khudkasht plots belonging to Khwaja Basit Husain or the waqf are now Bhumidhari plots, the consolidation authorities alone can decide as to who is the Bhumidhar of the same, the. Plaintiff or the Defendants. Mr. Mohd. Husain adds that if the suit is looked at, as a whole, it would appear that now the dispute substantially is with regard to Bhumidhari plots and for that reason the hearing of the appeal should be stayed. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the village in which the Bhumidhari plots aforesaid lie are under consolidation operations. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the village in which the Bhumidhari plots aforesaid lie are under consolidation operations. It is also admitted that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of those plots. Section 5 of the Act as it originally stood read: 5 Effect of declaration. (1) Upon the publication of the declaration u/s 4, the district or the local area, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the date of such publication until the publication of the notification u/s 52 in the official Gazette to the effect that the consolidation operations have been closed. (2) Where a district or any other local area is under consolidation operations, the duty of preparing and maintaining the maps, the Khasra and the annual register under Chapter III of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall stand transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and thereupon all the powers conferred on the Collector, Assistant Collector and the Tahsildar under the said Chapter shall, so long as that district or the area remains under consolidation operations, be exercised respectively by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Consolidation Officer." This provision was amended and in 1966 it stood in the, following form until it was amended by U.P. Act No. XXI of 1966: 5. Effect of (notification u/s 4(2))-Upon the publication of the notification under (Sub-section (2) of Section 4) in the official Gazette the consequences as hereinafter set forth, shall subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification u/s 52 or Sub-section (1) of Section 6 as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the (notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4) relates; namely-(a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations and the duty of maintaining the record-of-rights and preparing the village map, the field book and the annual register of each village shall be performed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall maintain or prepare them as the case may be, in the manner prescribed; (b)(i) all proceeding, 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, whether of first instance, appeal or reference or revision, shall stand stayed, but without prejudice to the right of the persons affected to agitate the right or interests in dispute in the said proceeding or suits before the Consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder; (iii) the findings of consolidation authorities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such right Or interest in the land, (shall be accepted by) the authority or court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned, proceed with the proceeding or suit, as the case may be; (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I of 1951) no tenure holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), previously obtained shall- (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming; or (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift, or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area: Provided that a tenure-holder may continue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued under (Sub-section (2) of Section 4). U.P. Act No. XXI of 1966, so far as relevant for our purposes, reads: ... ... ... ... 2. The existing Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Principal Act) shall be renumbered as Sub-section (1) thereof, and (1) Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) as so renumbered shall be omitted; and (ii) after Sub-section (1) as so renumbered the following new sub-section shall be added, namely: (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) every proceeding for the correction of records' and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in 'any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken Under' this Act pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit of proceeding is pending, stand abated: Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated; (b) such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. 3. 3. In Section 29G of the principal Act,- (i) for Sub-section (2) the following shall be substituted, namely,- (2) The provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall mutatis rautandis apply to such land as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration made by the State Government under Sub-section (1) of that section and as if the declaration were made subject to the conditions respecting utilisation specified in Sub-section (1) of this section. (ii) Sub-section (3) shall be omitted. (Italicised by us) 8. If the submissions of Sri Mohd. Husain are correct, the result would be that the hearing of the appeal would not be stayed, but the appeal itself would be declared to have abated. 9. It is clear that before Section 5 applies, the dispute between the parties' must be such which can be 'adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities Section 49 of the Act reads: 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 notification has been issued u/s 4 or adjudication of any other rights 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. This provision shows that if a matter could or ought to have been taken under the Act before the Consolidation authorities, it shall not be adjudicated upon in any civil or revenue court nor shall any declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holder in respect of land lying in an area tinder consolidation operations be questioned in any civil or revenue court. 10. A study of the provisions of the Act reveals that the Act is a self-contained code so far as the consolidation matters are concerned. It has created its own tribunals for the decision of matters relating to consolidation of agricultural holdings. 10. A study of the provisions of the Act reveals that the Act is a self-contained code so far as the consolidation matters are concerned. It has created its own tribunals for the decision of matters relating to consolidation of agricultural holdings. The consolidation authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdiction and are not civil or revenue courts. Therefore in order to apply Section 5 of the Act it is necessary to determine as to what are the matters in respect of which the special tribunals created by the Act can adjudicate and in respect of which the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts is barred. 11. The long title of the Act reads: An Act to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture :" The preamble of the Act reads: Whereas it is expedient to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture; Reading the two together it is clear that the Act has been passed in order to consolidate agricultural holdings with a view to develop agriculture. The consolidation authorities', therefore, can be seized only of those matters which relate to the consolidation of agricultural holdings and 'no' more. Section 3(5) defines 'land' and reads: "Land" means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes- (i) the site, being apart of a holding, of a house or other similar structure; and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the' plots forming the holding; Section 3(4C) defines 'holding' and reads: "Holding" means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders. From the aforesaid definition clauses it follows that the word 'land' has been used in the Act in the sense of land occupied for agricultural purposes or land which forms part or parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure. The word tenure can apply only' to agricultural land. It is clear that only agricultural pilots fall within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities. The word tenure can apply only' to agricultural land. It is clear that only agricultural pilots fall within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities. Clause (c) of Section 5 of the Act clearly provides that no tenure-holder, 'except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) previously obtained, shall use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including (sic) and poultry farming; or transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange any part of his holding in the consolidation area. This again shows that it is only agricultural land or land which is subject to a land-tenure that is capable of being adjudicated upon by a consolidation authority under the provisions of the Act. Section 3(2) of the Act defines 'consolidation' and reads: "Consolidation" means re-arrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. Explanation-For the purposes of this clause, holding shall not include the following: (i) land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification u/s 4 was issued; (ii) land subject to fluvial action and intensive soil erosion; (iii) land mentioned in Section 132 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; ' (iv) such compact areas as are normally subject to prolonged water-logging; (v) usar, kallar and rihala plots forming a compact area including cultivated land within such area; (vi) land in use for growing pan, rose bela, jasmine and kewra; and (vii) such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of consolidation." 'Tenure-holder' has been defined, in Section 3(11) of the Act which reads: "Tenure-holder" means a bhumidhar or sirdar of the land concerned and includes an asami; From these two provisions together it clearly follows that 'consolidation' means rearrangement of holdings between the Bhumidhars and Sirdars of the agricultural land falling in the village. This again would show that the functions of consolidation and for that reason of consolidation authorities are confined to the consolidation of the plots of the various Bhumidhars or Sirdars or Asamis in a village so that compact areas may be formed and thus help in larger agricultural production. 12. This again would show that the functions of consolidation and for that reason of consolidation authorities are confined to the consolidation of the plots of the various Bhumidhars or Sirdars or Asamis in a village so that compact areas may be formed and thus help in larger agricultural production. 12. Section 5 of the Act, which we have already reproduced earlier, also shows that it is only in respect of agricultural plots or agricultural holdings that consolidation operations take place and the operations are taken with a view to consolidate the agricultural plots. There is no provision in the Act under which civil rights of a party can be determined. The consolidation authorities are not competent to decide questions of proprietorship and are confined only to deciding questions relating to land tenure, that is to say relating to rights of tenure holders which means those of Bhumidhars or Sirdars or Asamis. What we are saying finds support from the provisions of Section 9, 9-A, 9-B, 9-C and 10 of the Act also. It would be noticed that Section 8 provides for the revision of field-book and current annual register and Section 8-A for the preparation of Statement of Principles. Section 9 clearly provides that when the records and statements mentioned in Section 8 and 8-A have been prepared and published, notices shall issue "to the tenure-holders concerned and other persons interested." It would be noticed that the records that are sought to be revised u/s 8 of the Act are those relating to tenure-holder plots and the statement of principles prepared u/s 8-A also relate to agricultural plots of tenure-holders. Section 9 of the Act also requires that notices shall be sent "to the tenure-holders or persons interested" i.e. those who claim to be tenure holders. Section 9-A of the Act provides that the objections in respect of land (agricultural land) and partition of joint holdings shall be decided. Section 9-C(2) of the Act provides that "the partition of joint holdings shall be effected on the basis of shares, provided that where the tenure-holders concerned agree, it, may be effected on the basis of specific plots." Section 10 of the Act provides for preparation and maintenance of revised annual registers on the basis of the orders passed u/s 9-A(1) and (2) of the Act. All these provisions clearly show that the dispute contemplated is only in respect of tenure-holder's rights in agricultural land and it is only those rights that are adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities. Section 12-A of the Act provides that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may determine the amount of land revenue payable by a tenure-holder and Section 12-D of the Act provides that "two or more tenure holders may, at any time, before the publication of the revised annual register under Sub-section (1) of Section 10, apply to the Consolidation Officer to amalgamate their holdings of like tenurs on such terms as may be agreed upon between them." From these provisions also it clearly follows that it is only the tenure-holder's right in respect of the agricultural land which are the subject matter of decision before the consolidation authorities. Section 19 speaks of the "conditions to be fulfilled by a consolidation scheme" and deals with the rights and liabilities of a tenure-holder, the valuation of plots allotted to a tenure-holder etc. Section 19-A deals with the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and deals with the allotments made to a tenure-holder after determining the valuation of the land vested in the Gaon Sabha, or any other local authority. Section 20 deals with the publication of the provisional consolidation scheme and receipt of objections thereto. Section 21 of the Act deals with the disposal of objections on the statement prepared u/s 19. Section 23 of the Act deals with the confirmation of the provisional consolidation scheme and the issue of allotment order to the tenureholders Section 24 of the Act deals with the possession to tenure-holders or their chaks and for payment of compensation to them for trees. Section 27 of the Act provides for the preparation of new revenue, records on the basis of allotment made to the various tenure-holders in the consolidation proceedings and Section 28 of the Act provides for delivery of possession to the tenure-holders of the plots allotted to them Section 32 of the Act deals with the power of a tenure holder to transfer his holding. The other provisions in the Act except Section 49 of the Act deal with miscellaneous matters with which we are not concerned in this case. 13. We have analysed all the relevant provisions of the Act including the long title and the preamble. The other provisions in the Act except Section 49 of the Act deal with miscellaneous matters with which we are not concerned in this case. 13. We have analysed all the relevant provisions of the Act including the long title and the preamble. The result of the analysis is that it becomes clear that it is only in respect of agricultural land and the rights of Bhumidhars, Sirdrs and Asamis that the consolidation authorities adjudicate. They are not concerned with any other rights or any other land or any other property. Section 49 of the Act bars proceedings in a civil or revenue court only in respect of such matters which could be adjudicated upon or have been competently adjudicated upon by a consolidation authority. The bar does not extend to matters which are beyond the purview or the competence of the consolidation authorities to decide. It would be noticed that the words used in Section 49 of the Act are "the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued u/s 4 or adjudication or any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 14. It is well settled that powers of a tribunal of limited jurisdiction must strictly be called out from the statute. See A.V.D. Costa, Divisional Engineer, A.V. D'costa Vs. B.C. Patel and Another, AIR 1955 SC 412 . That the consolidation authorities are tribunals of limited jurisdictions cannot be doubted. We have already said earlier that they are not courts or civil or revenue courts with the result that they cannot adjudicate upon any matter in respect of which there is no express provision permitting them to adjudicate upon. It is well settled that the bar to the jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be readily inferred and that their jurisdiction can be barred only by an express provision, or one from which such a bar can be inferred by necessary implication. [See Magiti Sasamal Vs. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547 and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. 67 Ind. App. [See Magiti Sasamal Vs. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547 and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. 67 Ind. App. 222 at page 236], The relevant words in the Privy Council decision are: it is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, confers on all civil courts full jurisdiction to decide all matters s relating to civil rights including rights relating to property except those barred by special enactment. In other words, a civil court would be presumed to have full jurisdiction to decide any question relating to a civil right including a right relating to property unless it can be shown that there is some statute or law under which the jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication. We have fully analysed the provisions of the Act and have come to the conclusion that the functions of the consolidation authorities are limited to deciding questions relating to tenure-holders right only, that is, rights of Bhumidhars or Sirdars or Asamis in respect of agricultural holdings and beyond this consolidation authorities can decide nothing. 15. Therefore in considering the present application, we have to see whether the matter is such which could have been or ought to have been decided or is capable of being decided by the consolidation authorities. 16. We have already reproduced in extenso the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The relief is for possession over proprietary rights in respect of certain Zamindari villages. Admittedly those rights now vest in the State of UP, but clearly one of the parties to this litigation is entitled to the compensation and the rehabilitation amounts in respect of those villages. A to who is entitled to the compensation and rehabilitation amounts cannot be determined by the consolidation authorities. We, therefore, see no reason to hold that the present appeal can either be stayed or has abated under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Mr. Mohd. Husain has contended, on the basis of the authorities mentioned in the opening part of this judgment, that the view of this Court is categorical that whatever may be the nature of rights, if it has any relation to agricultural property, it can be decided only by the consolidation authorities. Mr. Mohd. Husain has contended, on the basis of the authorities mentioned in the opening part of this judgment, that the view of this Court is categorical that whatever may be the nature of rights, if it has any relation to agricultural property, it can be decided only by the consolidation authorities. We are unable to agree. In none of the four cases cited by Mr. Mohd; Husain a question relating to either Zamindari property or compensation in respect of Zamindari property was involved. The only questions that were raised in these cases were relating to the rights of Bhtimidhars or Sirdars or Asamis and this, we have already held, can be decided by the consolidation authorities. It is true that the learned Judges, who dealt with those cases, have some times used the word 'title'. Most probably that word was used because the word 'title' occurred in the Act, in connection with Bhumidhari rights, but in those cases, the learned Judges were only considering either Bhumidhari or Sirdari or Adhivasi rights. Consequently even if they have used the word 'title' it must be read in the context in which it is used in that case, the context being that they were dealing with the rights of tenureholders only. These decisions are, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 17. For the reasons mentioned above we are of the opinion that the present appeal is not hit by the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. 18. We would also like to notice the other submission of Mr. Mohammad Husain that the plaint not having been amended, this Court cannot grant any relief in respect of the compensation amount. The submission is without substance. An appellate court is always entitled to take into consideration any change in law. See Gummalapura Taggina Matada Kotturuswami Vs. Setra Veeravva and Others, AIR 1959 SC 577 . The appellate court has also the power to mould the relief in view of the change in law. This can clearly be done Under Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure. It is therefore, open to us to mould the reliefs so as to suit the changed law and the changed circumstances. This objection also, therefore, has no force. 19. The application is, therefore, rejected.