JUDGMENT 1. This is defendants' appeal. 2. The dispute relates to plot No. 90/3 (.28 acre). The case of the plaintiff is that along with Indra Deo, defendant No. 6, he has been a cosirdar of this land. For a number of years preceding the suit instituted on July 29, 1967 he has had Palani on this land used for keeping the chaff cutting machine and the cattle etc. He also has had 11 trees on this land. In or about May/June, 1967 the defendant No. 5 raised therein Palani of mud wall and set up Chhapper etc. without authority. The relief sought is perpetual injunction against these defendants and also the demolition. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 resisted the suit. They denied that the plaintiff or the defendant No. 6 has had title or possession over this land and also pleaded that the land has not been in cultivation. This has been in their use for miscellaneous agricultural purposes. It was denied that the constructions raised by them came into being shortly before the suit instituted by the plaintiff. 3. The trial court recorded the finding that the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 are Bhumidhars of plot No. 90/3/1 covering the area of.17 acre and that they are cosirdars of the rest. The constructions of the defendant's Nos. 1 to 5 were raised shortly prior to the suit. They did not mature title by adverse possession. The trees belong to the plaintiff and defendant No. 6. The suit was accordingly decreed on 9th November, 1971. The appeal filed by the defendants No. 1 to 5 was dismissed by the lower appellate court on October 19, 1972, which affirmed that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 were Bhumidhars of this entire land and that the constructions claimed by the defendants contesting the suit, were raised shortly prior to the institution of the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 preferred this second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the defendantappellants urged that the decision on the question of title, chiefly arising in this case, is based by the lower appellate court on assumption that in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, this land was held as belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6. 1 to 5 preferred this second appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the defendantappellants urged that the decision on the question of title, chiefly arising in this case, is based by the lower appellate court on assumption that in proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, this land was held as belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6. It is argued that as appearing from the record, according to the case of the plaintiff himself, the land involved in controversy was left out of consolidation and not allotted to any party. In view of this, it is contended, the lower appellate court has erred in proceeding on the basis that there has been adjudication of title made by the consolidation authorities. The argument, as appears from the record, is possessed of considerable force. 5. In paragraph 2 of the plaint it was averred that the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 have had their Palani for keeping chaff cutting machine andcattle etc. on this land for long and also that they have had nine mango and two Neem trees on this land. One Shyam Deo had instituted original suit No. 384 of 1957 in the court of Munsif, Deoria against Babu Ram, the present plaintiff, and Indra Deo defendant No. 6, in respect of plot No. 90/3 (area.42 acre). In that suit there was a compromise entered into between the parties on July 13, 1960 and the decree, was passed in terms thereof, vide Ex. 3. The land measuring.28 acre was allotted to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 and respondents before us. Babu Ram, plaintiff, stated on oath in chief, in the instant case that shortly after this compromise decree, they raised Palani/Chhapper etc. on the land which fell to their share. Read along with the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the plaint dated July 29, 1967, this should clearly mean that these constructions of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 were claimed by the plaintiff as existing from before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. on the land which fell to their share. Read along with the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the plaint dated July 29, 1967, this should clearly mean that these constructions of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 were claimed by the plaintiff as existing from before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. It is true that both the courts below have found that the constructions of the defendants 4 to 5 were raised shortly before the suit was brought, but there is nothing observed with respect to the constructions which the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 had on this land, according to the case set up by the plaintiff himself. In crossexamination, moreover, the plaintiff stated in express terms that this land comprising the.28 acre is outside the chaks. It is also worthy of note that the suggestion made to Bhagwan, defendant No. 4, in crossexamination from the side of the plaintiff, was also to the effect that this land is not comprised into chaks and that in consolidation proceedings this has been left out of the same. No consideration seems to have been had to these admissions of the parties by the lower appellate court or the trial court for that matter. The lower appellate court observed that the C.H. Form 23, filed by the plaintiff, shows that the decision of the consolidation authorities was against the contestingdefendants and that this has a finality attached to it. The statement in C.H. Form No. 23, it has further been said, belies the contention raised by the contestingdefendants that the consolidation authorities left out from consolidation, the land in suit as Abadl and that the same records the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 as tenure holders of this land. It has been inferred accordingly, on this basis, that the consolidation authorities found the land as agricultural in nature. This runs contrary, as mentioned above, to the case taken by the plaintiff himself, with regard to the nature of this land. 6. C.H. Form 23 referred to by the lower appellate court, is drawn under Rule 46/Sec. 19A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Under Section 19A of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer is required to prepare Consolidation Scheme for the unit, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee. 6. C.H. Form 23 referred to by the lower appellate court, is drawn under Rule 46/Sec. 19A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Under Section 19A of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer is required to prepare Consolidation Scheme for the unit, in consultation with the Consolidation Committee. Tenure holders are to be allotted land as against their original holdings, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Section 19 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides that upon the preparation of Provisional Consolidation Scheme, the Assistant Consolidation Officer will publish it in the unit and also serve upon the tenureholders concerned and persons interested, notice containing relevant extracts showing the proposed allotment of chak to the tenureholders, as against their original holdings. The tenureholders, on receiving extracts of Provisional Consolidation Scheme showing allotment of chaks in C.H. Form No. 23 as against their original holding, can file within 15 days of the receipt of notice, an objection under subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act, disputing the propriety and correctness of the entries in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. The Consolidation Officer, on receiving those objections, is required to decide them in the manner provided in Section 21, after notice to the parties concerned and the Consolidation Committee. Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer under subsection (1) of Section. 21 of the Act can file appeal within 15 days, before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, under Section 21 (2) of the Act, whose decision shall, except as otherwise provided under this Act, be final. The order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation would, thus, be subject to the decisions passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of revisional powers under Section 48 of the Act. The plaintiff has not placed onrecord the Khatauni prepared under Section 27 of the Act in C. H. Form 45, read with Rule 97 which alone could show that this land had finally been allocated to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 in their tenure. 7. The plaintiff has not placed onrecord the Khatauni prepared under Section 27 of the Act in C. H. Form 45, read with Rule 97 which alone could show that this land had finally been allocated to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 6 in their tenure. 7. In Kamla Shanker v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1979 RD 78) cited for the appellants, brother N.D. Ojha, J. held relying upon an earlier Division Bench decision in Triloki Nath v. Ram Gopal ( 1974 RD 5 ) that where the consolidation authorities find that a particular holding is being used for purposes unconnected with agriculture etc., as envisaged by the definition of 'land' under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, they have no jurisdiction to decide the question of title in regard to such land. The only jurisdiction which the consolidation authorities have, in such matters, is to make an entry in the relevant column of C.H. Form No. 2A that the land was Abadi on the spot. They did not have any jurisdiction to direct the names of the petitioners to be expunged from the papers showing them to be Bhumidhars. I am in respectful agreement with this view. In face of the case taken by the plaintiffrespondent himself, it is plain that the plot No. 90/3 (.28 acre) was left out of consolidation as forming part of the Abadi and hence the consolidation authorities did not adjudicate the title in respect of the same. Consequently, Section 49 of the Act is not attracted. The civil court has to decide the question of title to this land as between the parties, on the evidence placed on the record other than that of the consolidation proceedings. The question of grant of relief, if any, to the plaintiff or otherwise is dependent on adjudication thus made according to law. 8. For these reasons the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated October 19, 1972 are set aside. The case is remanded to the lower appellate court for decision afresh on merits according to law and in the light of the observations made above. Costs of this Court on parties. (Appeal allowed)