ORDER D.D. Seth, J. - This application in revision arises out of the following circumstances. The opposite parties filed an objection u/s 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the effect that they were the sirdars of the plots in dispute. This objection was filed on 24-12-1956. The matter was ordered to be placed before the Consolidation Officer who on 7-2-1957 referred the matter to the Civil Judge u/s 12(4) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for giving an award. The Civil Judge framed the issues on 1-6-1957 and referred the same to an arbitrator who gave his award and held the Applicant to be in possession of the plots as sirdars. Thereupon the opposite parties filed objections before the Civil Judge against the award and the Civil Judge rejected the objections and made an order to make the award the rule of the court. Against that order the opposite parties went in appeal before the District Judge who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge. 2. I have heard Sri S.S. Verma learned Counsel for the Applicant and Sri Babu Ram Avasthi learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Sri S.S. Verma contended that the Civil Judge referred the matter to the arbitrator on 1-6-1957. The Amending Act (Act No. 16 of 1957) came into force on 3-6-1957. By that Amending Act Section 36-A was added to the Consolidation of Holdings Act. By Section 36-A it was provided that the sirdari would not be considered to be a question of title. However, it was held in Babu Ram v. Sughar Singh 1956 ALJ 741 by a learned single Judge of this Court that: But it appears many consolidation authorities were unaware of the fact that Section 332-A of the Zamindari Abolition Act was also applicable to proceedings under the Consolidation Act and under an erroneous impression of the law made references to Civil Judges u/s 12(4) of the Consolidation Act even though under the law as it then stood, no such references could be made and the question of Sirdari rights could be adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities themselves. 3. In the instant case the reference having been made before the Amending Act came into force the reference by the Civil Judge, to the Arbitrator was invalid. This contention of Sri S.S. Verma has, therefore, force. 4. 3. In the instant case the reference having been made before the Amending Act came into force the reference by the Civil Judge, to the Arbitrator was invalid. This contention of Sri S.S. Verma has, therefore, force. 4. The second contention of Sri S.S. Verma was that before the learned District Judge, before the remand of the case to the Consolidation Officer, a de-notification u/s 52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had already come into force and the remand order is without force. There is force in this contention also. After the de-notification all consolidation operations ceased and therefore, the remand to the Consolidation Officer was bad in law. 5. The result, therefore, is that this revision is allowed and the order passed by the District Judge is set aside. The parties are, however, ordered to bear their own costs.