JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated January 10, 1980 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal No. 248/77/Agra confirming judgment and decree dated May 16, 1977 passed by S.D.O./Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Etmadpur, district Agra. 2. The plaintiffs filed this suit with the allegation that they are Sirdars in possession of 39 Bighas 18 Biswas of old plot No. 342 since prior to the abolition of Zamindari; that their plot is near the boundary of village Karaich and it was made into 42 parts by his ancestors and it contains 38 different trees and it contains his grandfather Chunni Lal's. Than that was out of consolidation operation; that it had been shown wrongly as plot No. 1995 instead of 1981. 3. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha denying the plaint allegations alleging that the suit is barred by Section 49 of C.H. Act and that the land in suit is Gaon Sabha land which had been allotted to different defendants; that the plaintiffs are not in possession. 4. Out of the allottees suit had been contested by Kalyan Singh, Chiranji Lal Khasa and Tej Singh. They have alleged that defendants 3 to 12 are allottees in plot No. 1981 and they are in possession. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. 4. Out of the allottees suit had been contested by Kalyan Singh, Chiranji Lal Khasa and Tej Singh. They have alleged that defendants 3 to 12 are allottees in plot No. 1981 and they are in possession. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It has been argued that the plaintiff's suit is not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act as the disputed land was excluded from the consolidation operations; that the entries in the village records are wrong and the map has been wrongly prepared are the entries on this basis are wrong and are not final; that the original area on the spot having been in possession of the plaintiff by merely rearrangement of plot number and showing it wrongly in the map will not bar the suit under Section 49 of the C.H. Act; that the trial court wrongly rejected the report of the Vakil, Commissioner and did not send him again for proper report at least another Vakil Commissioner ought to have been appointed; that both the courts below have based their findings on conjectures and surprises; that the report of private surveyor was wrongly not relied upon and the report of Sri Mahendra Kumar Jain was wrongly rejected; that the evidence of parties has not been appraised at all and thus illegality has been committed; that only the revenue court has got jurisdiction for deciding the suit. Reliance has been placed on Nanhudas v. Latif Ahmad, 1981 R.D. 259, Bhola Nath v. Mangroo, 1981 R.D. 103(B.R., F.B.) and Nanwa alias Munna v. Maulana Abdul Mughni, 1981 A.W.C. 107 (H.C.). 7. It has been argued in reply that the concurrent findings of both the courts below should not be interfered with; that at best the case of the plaintiffs can be of correction of map for which only the court of the Collector of the district is the forum. 8. It is admitted fact that in old plot No. 342 the plaintiff was a tenant of 39 bighas 15 biswas and 39 bighas 15 biswas was Gaon Sabha's land. Out of the old plot 2 new plots have been carved out which are 1981 and 1995 and some other plots also. 8. It is admitted fact that in old plot No. 342 the plaintiff was a tenant of 39 bighas 15 biswas and 39 bighas 15 biswas was Gaon Sabha's land. Out of the old plot 2 new plots have been carved out which are 1981 and 1995 and some other plots also. The dispute is whether the old tenancy of the plaintiff which has been town as new plot No. 1995 should have been shown as plot No. 1981 and the Gaon Sabha's land should have been shown as plot No. 1995 as the plaintiff claims that on the spot he is in possession over plot No. 1981 and not on plot No. 1995 and that the location of his plot has not been changed by allotting new numbers in the consolidation operations. It is also admitted that the disputed plot with their old plot numbers were out of consolidation operations. 9. The question arises whether in such cases the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act or not and whether the revenue court has got jurisdiction of declaration as to whether there had been a mistake in giving the plot numbers in the map or not? 10. Section 331(1) and (1-A) of Act I of 1951 run 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 col. 4 of Schedule 11 shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. take I cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceeding based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could 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 11 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 granted. 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 granted. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), an objection that a court mentioned in column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which has no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or proceeding, exercised with respect 'thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice." The said provisions authorise only revenue court to grant any relief on any cause of action and it bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts to take cognizance of any such suit application or proceeding based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief (force supplied) can be granted by revenue court. 11. The revenue subordinate courts have been shirking their duty in such cases by holding that such cases are cases of correction of map for which only the Collector of the district has got the jurisdiction and have been throwing out plaintiff's suits which is not warranted by law. The scope of the jurisdiction of the revenue courts have been continuously enhanced by the legislature by successive enactment like declaration of sole rights and share therein and by providing for declaration of rights and share of co-tenants or joint tenants etc., such declarations cannot be given ordinarily now by Civil Courts. The provisions of jurisdiction in Section 331 of Act I of 1951 is very comprehensive and the revenue court's jurisdiction is exclusive for declaration that certain plot on the spot is wrongly shown as a different plot number in the Khatauni the record of rights which should be shown to be plot number mentioned in the map or vise versa such a declaration is very well within the ambit of Section 331 of Act I of 1951 and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts which are competent to grant such declaration. The plaintiff should not be dragged for different litigation's in different courts such as correction of maps or declaration by some other forum like Civil Courts, if such declaration is granted the map is bound to be corrected by the Collector and if such declaration is refused then the plaintiff is forced either to go for correction of map or to get any sort of declaration from civil court then again comes to the revenue court for declaration which he needed which was refused at the lust instance This had never been the intention of legislature. The legislature always entitled and had been changing the jurisdiction of the revenue courts for granting all sorts of reliefs regarding revenue litigation by one court namely the revenue courts. I am, therefore, of very definite opinion that the revenue court is the only forum for granting relief to the plaintiff for declaration that he is in possession over certain plot according to the spot and map and that a wrong number has been given in the Khatauni to be his number which is wrong according to the location on the spot. 12. In view of the above, the learned Additional Commissioner refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by holding that the plaintiff-appellant should go to the Collector for correction of map. 13. Both the courts below have not perused the oral evidence on record adduced by the parties and have thus acted illegality and have not exercised their jurisdiction judiciously and have based their finding on mere conjecture that the plaintiff wants to usurp the good land in place of his bad land. Both the courts below have failed in their judicial duty in not allowing local inspection to arrive at the conclusion whether the assertions of the plaintiff are correct or not as to whether they have been tenant and are continuing in possession over the plot claimed by them and whether in the Khatauni arid in the map wrong numbers have been given to his actual plot. The local inspection in such cases is highly necessary for judicious disposal of such cases. The trial court failed in its duty by not appointing another survey Vakil-Commissioner for local inspection after not accepting the report of the Vakil-Commissioner appointed by it and did not properly appraise the private survey Commissioner engaged by the plaintiff. The local inspection in such cases is highly necessary for judicious disposal of such cases. The trial court failed in its duty by not appointing another survey Vakil-Commissioner for local inspection after not accepting the report of the Vakil-Commissioner appointed by it and did not properly appraise the private survey Commissioner engaged by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court's observations that it was the discretion of the trial court to appoint Vakil-Commissioner or not as other evidence was on record is not justified and correct. The trial court had appointed the Vakil-Commissioner and failed in its duty after not accepting the report of the Vakil-Commissioner in not appointing another Vakil-Commissioner. 14. The findings of both the courts below that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act is highly illegal and erroneous and is against law for the following reasons and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 15. It is admitted that the old plot i.e, both the disputed plots were outside consolidation operations only renumbering was done so no adjudication took place regarding the disputed plots then where is the question of the application of bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act. In such cases if the maps are prepared wrongly they do not operate as bar under Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act because now the presumption of finality to the record of rights is not attached according to the provisions of Section 27 of the U.P. C.H. Act which is now rebuttable and if it is shown that mistake has been committed it is being continuously held by the Hon'ble High Court and even by the Board that bar of application of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act is not applicable, reference can be easily made to Nanhudda v. Latif Ahmad, 1981 R.D. 259 which is a case regarding mistake in map and consequently in revenue records in which it has been held that the suit is not barred by Section 49 the of the U.P. C.H. Act and the declaration according to the location of the plot was granted. 16. 16. In view of the above, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside and the case needs to be remanded to the trial court for decision afresh after appointing Vakil-Commissioner for local inspection and allowing the parties to adduce further evidence if any. 17. This appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs although and the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh decision complying the aforesaid directions.