JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - These two connected appeals arise out of the judgments and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated September 14, 1973 though the appeals file by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of judicial Officer, Roorkee, district Saharanpur dated August 30, 1971 dismissing the plaintiff's suit were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the plaintiff's suits were dismissed on several grounds including the question of the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act but the learned Additional Commissioner did not consider any point or any evidence on record and dismissed the appeals merely on the ground that that the suits were barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. It was argued that the bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act did not apply to the facts of the present cases because the land in suits is situated within the limits of Nagar Palika, Haridwar where zamindari abolition came into force on July 1, 1963. It was conceded that the village had been under consolidation operations but by virtue of Section 3(2)-A of the C.H. Act the bar of Section 49 and 27 C.H. Act did not apply to the suits because the entries made by the consolidation authorities in those proceedings were not conclusive and final. 4. I find in the argument so raised before me. From the record is it proved that consolidation operations were held in the year 1960-61 when 'U.P. Tenancy Act was in vogue in the area and Z.A. Act had not been applied. Section 3(2)-A of C.H. Act clearly laid down that the consolidation area would not mean such area to which the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 do not apply. The said Section is reproduced and follows:- "Section 3(2)-A. " 'Consolidation area' means the area in respect of which notification under Section 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act, 1950, do not apply." The above provision clearly shows that consolidation proceeding would apply only to such areas which are covered by U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 150 and not to those areas where the U.P. Tenancy act was in force. My attention has been drawn to Notification No. 2653/IA-168-60 dated June 20, 1963 published in U.P. Gazette part I dated June 29, 1963 at serial No. 2 of the which Haridwar Municipality, district Saharanpur finds place in respect of which area Z.A. Act came into force on July 1, 1963. In view of such notification it is proved beyond doubt that during the period when consolidation proceedings were going on the land in suit was situated within the precincts of Nagarpalika, Haridwar where Z.A. Act came into force on July 1, 1963, i.e. after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the C.H. Act. Consequently the consolidation proceedings did not have any effect on the entries relating to the land in dispute and, therefore, there was no question of the suits being barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. It is surprising that both the courts below failed to examine this question in the the light of the above statutory provisions and held the suits barred by Section 49 of of the U.P.C.H. Act. The learned Additional Commissioner did not at all consider the merits of the case and dismissed the appeals merely on the ground that the suit were barred by Sec. 49 or the above Act. His judgment and decree are, therefore, liable to be quashed and the cases must be send back to him to decide the appeals on Merits. 5. I view of the above discussion both the appeals are allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside and the cases are remanded back to him to decide the appeals fresh on merits according to law after hearing both the parties. This order shall govern S.A.No. 61(z) of 1973-74, Saharanpur.