JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against an order dated 13-11-1987 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 5 (1) (c) (i) and Section 45-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Admittedly the land in dispute is situated within the limits of village Bisauli. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26-7-1986. The respondent no. 2 moved an application on 15-2-1987 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for permission to construct a cinema building in the land in dispute. 3. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent no. 2 has just started raising construction in contravention of provisions of law though in the counter affidavit it has come that practically the entire construction for cinema building has been completed by the respondent no. 2. 4. On 25-5-1987 the petitioner had failed the said application with the following prayer. (i) the respondent nos. 2 and 3 may be restrained from raising any construction and also for demolition of the construction already raised. (ii) The respondents may be prosecuted and punished under Section 45-A of the Act. This application has been rejected on 13-11-1987 which gave rise to the present writ petition. 5. The only controversy which is involved in the present case is whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation could have granted these two reliefs claimed by the petitioner. For this, reference will have to be made to certain provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. Relevant portion of Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act is being quoted below - "143. Use of holding for industrial or residential purposes. - (1) Where a bhumidhar with transferable rights uses his holding or part thereof for the purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the Assistant Collector in charge of his sub-Division may, suo motu or on the application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed make a declaration to that effect." This provision gives power to the Assistant Collector to make a declaration that the bhumidhar may use his holding for purposes other than agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. 7. A similar provision has been made in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 7. A similar provision has been made in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Relevant portion of Section 5 of said Act reads as under : - "5. Effect of notification under Section A (2). - (1) Upon the publication of the notification (under sub-section (j) of Section 4) in the official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified thereunder till the publication of notification under Section 52 of sub-section (1) of Section 6 as the case may be, ensure in the area to which notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 (sic) namely - (a) ....................... (b) ....................... (c) notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of Settlement Officer consolidation previously obtained shall - (i) use his holding or any part thereof for purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming ; or bandry including pisciculture and poultry farming ; or (ii).........." The settlement officer consolidation has been given power to grant permission to a tenure holder to use his holding or part thereof for the purposes not connected with the agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry including pisciculture and poultry farming. 8. For breach of Section 5 (1) (c) (i) of the Act there is a provision for certain penalty which is mentioned in Section 45-A the Act it reads as follows : - "45-A. Penalty of contravening provisions of Section 5. - (1) Any person contravening the provisions of Section 5 (c) (i) shall, on conviction, by a court of competent jurisdiction, be liable to a fine not exceeding rupees one thousand, (2) A transfer made in contravention of the provisions of Section 5 (c) (ii) shall not be valid or recognised ; anything contained in any other law for the time in force to the contrary notwithstanding." 9. Coming to the first prayer made by the petitioner in his application, this Court has to decide whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation has any jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining the other side from raising any construction and also pass an order of demolition of the construction already done. 10. Coming to the first prayer made by the petitioner in his application, this Court has to decide whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation has any jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining the other side from raising any construction and also pass an order of demolition of the construction already done. 10. By virtue of Section 41 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 have been made applicable to proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act. Section 217 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is under Chapter X of the Act. It provides that the appellant court may suspend execution of the order of the lower court. Impliedly it has got power to grant injunction to preserve the nature of the land otherwise unscrupulous litigant after raising the construction will render the consolidation authorities powerless and the proceedings would become without jurisdiction, as after the construction the land ceases to be the land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It has already been held by me in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no Nil of 1988 Birendra Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & others, decided on 11-5-1988 that the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction to grant injunction. 11. In a Full Bench decision of this Court, reported in 1971 ALJ 1074 Baleswar Dayal v. State of U.P., while Considering the scope of Section 7-F of the U.P. Temporary (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1974, held that the State Government has jurisdiction to pass interim order including the stay orders which it might consider necessary in the interest of justice. Making of such an interim order which enables State Government to make an effective final order under Section 7-F would be within its jurisdiction. Such interim orders can be directed only against such persons or authorities which are amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Government in proceedings under the Act. 12. But so far the granting of injunction in the present case is concerned, no useful purpose could have been served because the entire cinema building has already been constructed. The settlement officer consolidation has rightly rejected this prayer. 13. Moreover granting or not granting injunction is a discretionary matter. 12. But so far the granting of injunction in the present case is concerned, no useful purpose could have been served because the entire cinema building has already been constructed. The settlement officer consolidation has rightly rejected this prayer. 13. Moreover granting or not granting injunction is a discretionary matter. In a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in AIR 1964 Allahabad 534, Babu Ram Ashok Kumar v. Antarim Zila Parishad, it has been held : - "Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below if the discretion has been exercised in good faith, after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matters. Even if two views are possible on the question, then a court of appeal would not interfere even though it may exercise discretion differently, were the case to come, initially before it. The exercise of discretion should be manifestly wrong." 14. If this restriction is imposed on the appellate Court then the same can be applicable to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with greater force. Nothing has been shown to me that discretion exercised by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was arbitrary or was based on irrelevant matters. 15. Now coming to the question whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation has any jurisdiction to pass an order of demolition of the building, it is settled law that only the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Civil Court for this relief. The finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation on this point is also correct. 16. Now I come to the second prayer made by the petitioner in his application dated 25-5-1987 by means of which he desired that the respondent no. 2 be prosecuted and punished under Section 45-A of the Act by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 17. Section 45-A of the Act provides that if a tenure holder contravenes the provisions of Section 5(1) (c) (i) he shall be prosecuted by a court of competent jurisdiction and on his conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding rupees one thousand. Now the question is whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation is a court of competent jurisdiction and has jurisdiction to pass an order of conviction against a tenure holder who has contravened the provisions of the Act. 18. Now the question is whether the Settlement Officer Consolidation is a court of competent jurisdiction and has jurisdiction to pass an order of conviction against a tenure holder who has contravened the provisions of the Act. 18. On examination of the provisions of the Act and the Rules it is clear that no forum is prescribed for the trial of an offence under Section 45-A of the Act. In this situation the trial of the offence would be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure alone. There is no controversy that the Settlement Officer Consolidation was not functioning in the capacity as a Magistrate. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is not a Court but only a Tribunal. There is no evidence on record to show that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been given the magisterial power. So either he should have dropped the proceedings or returned the application for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction to try the offence. I find support from a decision of this Court reported in 1977 (3) ALR 383, Parasram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly rejected this prayer also. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State v. Autar Krishna, (1957 Cr LJ 167) held that for the trials of an offence committed under the Sales Tax Act for which no forum has been prescribed, the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. The position under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is also similar and the proceedings under Section 45-A of the Act can be initiated only before a criminal Court. 20. The scheme of the Act and the intention of Legislature has to be ascertained from the language used. In the case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1499 M/s. Girdharilal and Sons. v. Balbir Nath Mathur and others, it has been observed by the Supreme Court as page 1503 as follows : "We see that the primary and foremost task of a Court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote/advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. Having must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote/advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language." 21. Another controversy has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the land has now been included within the limits of Municipal Board. Opportunity has been given to both the parties to lead evidence but from the materials on record it is not possible to record a clear finding whether the land in dispute is within the limits of Municipal Board or not. So I keep this question open to be decided by a competent court if it is required to be done. 22. Since I am of the opinion that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmity, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It has also come in the evidence that the petitioner has already filed a suit in the Civil Court for injunction and the matter is still pending. Since the petitioner is perusing an alternative remedy, he cannot be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court as well under Article 226 of Constitution. 23. I see no force in this writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.