JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 20, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division dismissing First Appeal No. 547 of 1971 and confirming the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1071 passed by the Judicial Officer, Soram in Suit No. 245 of 1970-71 under Section 22-B, UPZA and LR Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The appellant, Ganga Prasad, who was a minor, under the guardianship of his mother Srimati Shital Devi filed a suit with the allegations that plot No. 931-M in village Adampur was the grove for Ghistiyaswan Lal who by a registered gift deed dated May 11, 1882 gifted it to his sister's son Guari Shanker, Gauri Shanker was succeeded by his son Mata Badal and Mata Badal had been succeeded by his son Ganga Prasad. It had been further alleged that as the plaintiff-appellant was a minor at the time of consolidation, he failed to get his name recorded during the consolidation proceedings. State Government and the Gaon Sabha had been impleaded as defendants. They filed a written statement to the effect that the land in suit was not a grove but was a tank and Gram Sabha property. It was further stated that it was land of public utility in the occupation of the Gaon Sabha, Holal, Bhola, and Datadin, respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 filed an application for impleadment and contested the suit on the ground that the Gaon Sabha had granted a lease in their favour and on the basis of this lease they had planted trees on the land in suit and were in possession. On Ram Swaroop, respondent No. 6, also moved an application for being impleaded on the basis that he was the heir and successor of ane Sahodar Lal, the original tenure-holder of the land. 4. The trial court framed eight issues Issued No. 6 was of the effect whether the suit was barred under Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act ? The trial court decided this issue as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit as being barred by Sec. 49. This view has been upheld by the first appellate court and has been challenged in this second appeal. 5. The trial court decided this issue as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit as being barred by Sec. 49. This view has been upheld by the first appellate court and has been challenged in this second appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the time when the consolidation proceedings started in the village, the appellant was a minor and no guardian was appointed for him by the Consolidation Authorities, and as such the appellant could not file an objection before the Consolidation authorities and, therefore, Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not bar the present case. He has further contended that the appellant's mother Srimati Shital Devi was also an illiterate and ignorant village woman and could not know about the consolidation proceedings and its implications and consequences. 6. Rule 14 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules provides as follows :- "14. (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee appoint guardians, for purposes of proceedings under the Act, of such tenure-holders who are minors, idiots or lunatics unless such guardians have been already appointed by order of a competent Court. (2) The guardian appointed for minor, idiot or lunatic under Sub-rule (1) shall be his natural guardian unless the natural guardian possesses an interest adverse to the interest of the minor, idiot or the lunatic. If the natural guardian is not so appointed, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall record reasons therefore and shall then appoint the nearest male relative of the minor, the idiot or the lunatic, not possessing an interest adverse to him, as his guardian. (3) A list of all such guardians together with the names of their wards shall be published in the village and any person interested in the ward may file an objection against such appointment before the Consolidation Officer within fifteen days of such publication, whose orders shall, subject to the modification, if any, made by orders passed under Section 48 be final." 7. Thus the legal position is that the bar of Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be applicable to the holdings of a minor only if the appointment of a guardian of the minor has been made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in accordance with Rule 14 cited above. Thus the legal position is that the bar of Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be applicable to the holdings of a minor only if the appointment of a guardian of the minor has been made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in accordance with Rule 14 cited above. If the compliance of Rule 14 has not been made by any reason it would be the travesty of justice to allow the interest of minor to suffer. Unfortunately the court below have given the verdict that the suit was barred by Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act without bothering to look into the question whether the consolidation authorities had in fact appointed a guardian in accordance with Rule 14. The finality of adjudication of rights made by the consolidation authorities applies only in cases where the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules made thereunder are complied with and not otherwise. Where there is any conspicuous failure on the part of the consolidation authorities to act in accordance with the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules framed thereunder, no such finality can be attached to their decisions. 8. The result is that I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. The trial court shall now proceed to decide the issue regarding bar of Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act afresh after giving all the parties an opportunity to show whether adjudication of rights with regard to the land in suit was done by the consolidation authorities in accordance with the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, in particular, whether and appointment of the guardian of the minor was in accordance with Rule 14 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules.