JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order of the Addl. Commissioner (II), Allahabad Division confirming the decree of the trial court dated October 27, 1970 in a case under Sec. 229-B, UPZA and LR Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 3. The appellant, Abdul Ghafoor had filed this suit with the allegations that plot No. 121 in village Ram Nagar was the Bhumidhar of Ziaul Haq and Ahmadul Haq who migrated to Pakistan and whose property thereafter was declared to the evacuee property by the order of the Assistant Custodian, Allahabad dated July 31, 1956. The managing officer of the evacuee property sold the land in suit to the appellate by a Sale Certificate dated October 23, 1967 and thus the plaintiff-appellant came to be the Bhumidhar of the land. The suit was contested by respondents Nos. 7 and 8 Ram Abhilakh and Ram Padarath on the ground that it was barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the trial court framed six issues. It, however, decided only one issue (issues No. 3), which was, whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of UPCH Act ?" and dismissed the suit holding that the bar of Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applied. Appellate Court has also reaffirmed this view. 4. A large number of grounds have been taken in the second appeal. However, the main question which has been discussed before me by the learned counsel for the respective side sis whether the bar of Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was applicable. It is undisputed that the land in suit is evacuee property. The learned Additional Commissioner has taken the view that the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property should have filed an objection before the consolidation authorities and where no such objection was filed, and certain persons were declared to be Sirdars by the consolidation authorities, any further suit was bared by Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This however, is not the correct view and does not take into account. Section 48-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which reads as follows : "48-A Special provisions with respect to evacuee property. This however, is not the correct view and does not take into account. Section 48-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which reads as follows : "48-A Special provisions with respect to evacuee property. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act- (a) no decision of the Custodian of Evacuee Property (hereinafter in this section referred to as the Custodian) in relation to title to any land vested in him as evacuee property under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, shall be called in question and varied or reversed by any officer or authority under this Act; and (b) nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring the Custodian to stay any proceedings in relation to title to any such land pending before him on the date of the coming into force of these provisions of this Act under which proceedings in relation to title to land are required to be stayed or as empowering the Consolidation Officer or any other officer or authority to refer for determination of any question of title in relation to such land involved in any proceedings pending before the Custodian on such date. (2) Where as a result of consolidation operations in any village. (a) lands which are vested as evacuee property in the Custodian under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, are included in holdings which are not vested in the Custodian as evacuee property, such lands shall on and from the date of the coming into force of the consolidation scheme cease to be so vested in the custodian and the provision of the said Act shall there upon cease to apply in relation thereto, and (b) in lieu of such lands corresponding lands shall be included in holdings which are vested in the Custodian as evacuee property, and such lands shall, on and from the date of the coming into force of consolidation scheme be deemed to be evacuee property declared as such within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and be vested in the Custodian and the provisions of the said Act, shall thereupon apply so far as may be in relation to such lands." 5. The scope of Sec. 48-A has been discussed by Shri Ashwini Kumar, Member in Anwar Ahmad v. Ghulam Hussain 1970 RD 120 in which it has been held that the decision of the Custodian, Evacuee Property is final and conclusive and is not open to interference by any other Court, not even by the consolidation authorities. This question has also been discussed at length by any learned Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Massom Banoo v. Hari Singh AIR 1974 Allahabad 462. In this judgment, Sri Satish Chandra and Gulati, JJ., have observed as follows. "It will be seen that the consolidation authorities cannot call in question or vary or reverse any decision of the Custodian in relation to title to an evacuee property. The provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act requiring such title proceedings to be stayed are not applicable to proceedings before the Custodian. Under clause (b) of sub-section(1) the consolidation authorities cannot even refer for determination any question of title in relation to land which is an evacuee property. These provisions clearly exclude the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to decide the title to evacuee property. Under sub-section(2) the consolidation authorities can include evacuee land in the consolidation scheme. If as a result of the enforcement of the consolidation scheme land which had vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property is included in holdings which are not so vested then such land ceases to be evacuee property and corresponding land which is allotted in lieu thereof becomes evacuee property. In other words, if during formation of Chaks evacuee property is allotted to the Chak of a non-evacuee and some land which was till then non-evacuee is included in the Chak of the erstwhile holder of evacuee land, then the Chak so formed, in the name of the holder of the erstwhile evacuee land will become evacuee property and such newly formed Chak will be subject to the provision of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Reading Section 48-A as a whole, it is apparent that consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of title relating to evacuee land, but nonetheless they can deal with evacuee land for the purpose of formation of Chaks and the new Chak formed in favour of the holder of evacuee land continues subject to the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. It is apparent that Sec. 48-A is an exception to Sec. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Further, Sec. 49 bars declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act. Sec. 48-A bars the adjudication of question of title in relation to evacuee property. So, in relation to evacuee property, Section 49 comes inapplicable. The present suit which was filed to enforce the order of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, was not barred by Sec. 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act." 6. The legal position would be that Sec. 48-A is a special provision and provides an exception to Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In relation to evacuee property Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is inapplicable. Thus, no party can claim the defence that a declaratory suit in respect of evacuee property was barred under Section 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. One may ask whether this argument can be carried further and it may be said that a revenue court could not entertain suit under Sec. 229-B in relation to evacuee property. Section 48-A, however does not provide any such bar. All it says is that the decision of the Custodian of Evacuee Property in relation to title any land vested in him as evacuee property shall not be called in question or varied or reserved by any officer or authority under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Sec. 48-A does not refer to an officer or an authority or Court functioning under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act. Thus, a revenue Court will still have jurisdiction to decide a suit under Section 229-B, UPZA and LR Act in relation to evacuee property. 7. Thus, both the courts below have taken an incorrect view of law in holding, that the present suit was barred under Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. On the other hand, the land in suit being evacuee property, the bar of Sec. 49, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was not applicable. 8. Accordingly, I hereby allow the second appeal and set aside the judgments of the Courts below. The case is now remanded to the trial court who will proceed to hear and decide the suit on merits in accordance with law.