JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a reference dated October 28, 1978 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad, recommending to allow the revision application against the order dated Jule 30, 1978. passed by S.D.O., Soran, District Allahabad deciding issue No. 3, that the revenue court has got jurisdiction. 2. Objection has been filed by opposite party. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It has been argued that the reference be accepted because revenue court has got no jurisdiction as held in 1965 R.D. 216, because no relief has been asked against State or Gaon Sabha who have been substituted for landholder in Section 229-B (3) of Act I of 1951. 5. It was argued in reply on behalf of the opposite party that the ruling reported in 1965 R.D. 216 is not applicable to the facts of the case; that in that ruling provisions of Section 331 of Act I of 1951 and Schedule II of that Act were not considered; that these provisions debar the jurisdiction of the civil court for a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 as provided in II Schedule of the Act read with Section 331 of Act I of 1951, that in a proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. the S.D.M. directed to get declaration of their rights from a competent court and the suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights is maintainable only in the revenue court, therefore, the recommendation should not be accepted and the trial court's finding on issue No. 3 should be maintained. 6. Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 runs as follows: "229-B. Declaratory suit by person claiming to be Asami of holding or part thereof : (1) any person claiming to be an Asami of holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue and landholder for a declaration of his rights as Asami in such holding or part, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as Asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as Asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word 'landholder' the words 'the State Government and Gaon Sabha' are substituted therein." 7. This section provides that a Bhumidhar can file a suit for declaration against State Government and the Goan Sabha and against any other person claiming to hold as Bhumidhar (Bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights). This Section no where lays down that if a person recorded in revenue papers as a Bhumidhar (for-merely Bhumidhar or Sirdar) cannot file such a declaratory suit. 8. Section 331(1) of Act I of 1951 runs as follows:- "331. Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act. (1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, take cognizence of any suit, application or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief court be obtained by means of any such suit or application: Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they related to suits. Applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof. Explanation. If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have grated." Section 331(1) of Act I of 1951 provides that the jurisdiction will be exercised regarding suits or applications mentioned in column 3 of II Schedule of the Act by the Courts mentioned in Column 4 of that Schedule. The forum for declaratory suits under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 in mentioned at Serial No. 34 of the Second Schedule of the Act. The forum for declaratory suits under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 in mentioned at Serial No. 34 of the Second Schedule of the Act. Section 331(1) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court mentioned in the C.P.C., and other than courts mentioned in Schedule II. This section no where provide that if a person is recorded as Bhumidhar in the village revenue papers, such declaratory suit shall not be cognizable by court of original jurisdiction mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II of the Act. Therefore, it is misnomer to say that where a person is recorded in village papers, he cannot file a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951. The ruling reported in 1965 R.D. 216 also does not lay down that a suit where the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue papers, his suit for declaration will not lie in the revenue court, and will lie exclusively in the Civil Court. In that case the provisions of Section 331 of Act I of 1951 were not considered. In that case the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court was upheld holding that Section 229-B was not worded generally to cover all suits for declaration and thus the jurisdiction of civil court was upheld, but it never said that the jurisdiction of the revenue court was barred, and therefore, it is not helpful and it cannot be held that jurisdiction of revenue court in cases where the plaintiff is recorded as Bhumidhar or Sirdar seeks declaration of his right, suits do not lie in the revenue court or the jurisdiction of the revenue court is barred. 9. In the present case the relief sought was for declaration for sole Bhumidhari right and that the possession of the plaintiff be kept intact. It was argued that the possession by revenue court cannot be kept intact, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in the revenue court. The word 'any relief used in Section 331 (1) in wide enough for granting reliefs permissible by Act No. I of 1951 and at least relief for declaration can certainly be granted by only revenue court and not by any other court. 10. The word 'any relief used in Section 331 (1) in wide enough for granting reliefs permissible by Act No. I of 1951 and at least relief for declaration can certainly be granted by only revenue court and not by any other court. 10. In the present case the land in suit has been attached in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and the plaintiff has been directed to seek declaration of his rights from a competent court. In such cases relief for declaration or in the alternative for possession can be sought only from a revenue court, even though the plaintiff might be recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue papers. The relief for such declaration cannot be refused by a revenue court on the mere ground that the plaintiff is recorded as a Bhumidhar or Sirdar in the village revenue papers and it cannot be deemed that he is seeking declaration against the State Government or the Gaon Sabha. In my considered opinion if a cloud on the title of a Bhumidhar is cast by any person or by any proceedings such person is entitled to get his title and status declared by a competent revenue court alone as provided by Section 331(1) and by Schedule II of the Act. It is therefore, held that the finding of the lower appellate court is erroneous and is not justified in law and recommendation for allowing the revision be accepted which is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above, this revision application is dismissed and the finding of the trial court on issue No. 3 is liable to be dismissed. 12. In view of the above, this revision application is dismissed and the finding of the trial court on issue No. 3 is confirmed. Let the record of the trial court be sent to it immediately for proceeding ahead to dispose off the case expeditiously.