JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi by which he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22-7-1977 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) granting permission to O.P. No. 3 Har Sewak for making construction over plot No. 1123 M. area Acre situated in village Baragaon District Varanasi. 2. Briefly slated the facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Achhaibar was recorded as tenure-holder over plot no. 1123 area 0.04 Acre and the O.P. No. 3 Har Sewak was recorded as tenure-holder on separate holding in a separate khata over 1123 M. area 0.04 Acre. It appears that the O.P. No. plot no. 3 Har Sewak filed an application under section 5 (c) (i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking permission to make construction over his portion of the plot in question. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) granted permission to the O.P. No. 3 by his order dated 25-6-1974. Against this order a revision was filed by Achhaibar, the father of the petitioners 1 and 2. The ground urged in the revision was that since permission was earlier refused by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and as such the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) could not grant permission to O.P. No. 3 subsequently. This revision was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10-9-1975 holding that application of O.P. No. 3 was not rejected in respect of land in question. The petitioners' father Achhiabar again moved an application asserting that it was under wrong impression that the averment was made in revision that on earlier application of O.P. No. 3 for permission was rejected and such he prayed that the order dated 25-6-74 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) granting permission be set aside on the ground that no such permission can be granted to a tenure holder when in respect of the land in question and objection for determining title is pending between the parties. This application was rejected on 3-3-1976. Subsequently Achhaibar died and the petitioners again moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was rejected by him vide order dated 2-8-1976. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners filed this writ petition. 3. This application was rejected on 3-3-1976. Subsequently Achhaibar died and the petitioners again moved an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was rejected by him vide order dated 2-8-1976. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioners filed this writ petition. 3. It has come on record that the objection which was filed by Achhaibar under section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming Sirdari rights on the land in question on the basis of adverse possession has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7-2-1977. Against that order O.P. No. 3 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 22-7-1977 holding that the petitioners have not perfected the rights of the adverse possession over the land in question and the entries in Clause 9 in the name of Achhaibar was not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Record Manual. Against the said order the petitioners filed revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 10-2-1983. The copies of these orders have been annexed along with the counter-affidavit. 4. A perusal of the order dated 10-2-1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation indicates that the finding has been recorded to the effect that the O.P. No. 3 is in possession over an area of 0.04 Acre of plot No. 1123 towards the west and that the petitioners have not perfected their rights on the land in dispute on the basis of their alleged adverse possession. It has been held that they are not in possession over the land in dispute and the O.P. No. 3 is in possession over it. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that when the case under section 9 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act was pending between the parties in respect of the land in dispute no permission could be granted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for making construction over it. He thus urged that the order granting permission is without jurisdiction. 1 am unable to agree with this contention. Section 5 (c) (i) of the Act does not create any such bar and the permission for making construction to a tenure-holder cannot be refused merely on the ground that his title in respect of the land in question is disputed by the Opp. 1 am unable to agree with this contention. Section 5 (c) (i) of the Act does not create any such bar and the permission for making construction to a tenure-holder cannot be refused merely on the ground that his title in respect of the land in question is disputed by the Opp. party by filing an objection under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. I further find that the finding has been recorded to the effect by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 10-2-1983 that O.P. No. 3 is in possession over the land in dispute which falls on the western side of the plot in question and that the entries in clause 9 in favour of the petitioner's father were not made in accordance with the provisions of the rules. In this view of the matter I do not find that any error was committed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in granting permission to O.P. No. 3 to make construction over the land in question of which he was recorded tenure-holder. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the appeals and revisions arising out of the proceedings under section 9-A-2 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act have further observed that the plot in question was abadi and as such since plot in question has been held to be abadi no permission could be granted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in respect of abadi land. I am unable to agree with this contention. The perusal of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation in appeal and in revision arising out of the proceedings under section 2-A-2 of the Act indicates that the application of the petitioners regarding their Sirdari rights over the land in question on the basis of adverse possession has been rejected on merits and also by observing that since the land in question is abadi land, the petitioner's claim cannot be upheld. This observation cannot be taken to be a decision of the question that the plot is abadi land. This observation cannot be taken to be a decision of the question that the plot is abadi land. In the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is mentioned that he has also made a spot inspection and he has found that Har Sewak (P. No. 3) is in possession over the western portion of plot in question and on the eastern portion Bind Basini, the petitioner, is in possession and on the plot a dividing `Mend' also exists. It is not the case of the other side that on the plot in question any construction is situated and as such the observation made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in their aforesaid orders regarding the land in question being the abadi land cannot be said to be a finding on the subject but the observation is made while rejecting alternatively the claim of the petitioners. 7. The provisions of section 5(c)(i) of the Act do not require any determination with regard to land being agricultural or abadi land ; and it merely provides that a tenure-holder cannot use his holdings or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thus, a tenure-holder cannot utilise the land for making construction thereon without the permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as required under section 5 (c) (i) of the Act even if that plot of his agricultural holding falls within `abadi' or has assumed the character of abadi. If he makes any construction on the land of his holding without obtaining the permission as is required under section 5 (c) (i) of the Act he would be liable to be prosecuted as is provided under section 45-A of the Act. Since penalty has been provided for the contravention of the provisions of section 5 (c) (i) of the Act. I am of the opinion that in respect of every land forming part of the holdings even if it is situate in abadi, the tenure-holder has to obtain permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for making construction. Since penalty has been provided for the contravention of the provisions of section 5 (c) (i) of the Act. I am of the opinion that in respect of every land forming part of the holdings even if it is situate in abadi, the tenure-holder has to obtain permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for making construction. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the land in question is said to be abadi and as such no permission could be granted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The impugned order granting permission to O.P. No. 3 to make construction on the land in question, in my opinion, does not suffer from any error of law and jurisdiction. 8. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order of stay dated 2-9-1976 is hereby vacated.