JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide his order dated 6.6.1984 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Opposite party is absent. Perused the record. 3. From the file of the Additional Commissioner could it appear that there was a litigation between Jmil Ahmad v. Sabbir Ahmad, in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial Court decreed that suit on 1.3.1983 and decree was prepared on 2.3.1983. Against that decree and judgment State Government filed the revision. The learned Additional Commissioner recommended that decree should be set aside as the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The judgment of the trial court is also on the record of the Additional Commissioner's records. A perusal of it also show that there is no interest of the State Government. The objection of the State Government is only that the parties admitted the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents who were recorded in the consolidation proceeding. Therefore this is not a fit case in which a re-visional jurisdiction should have been exercised. The claim of co-tenancy can be admitted in a suit under Section 229-B, after the consolidation operation. The suit of co-tenancy can never be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Therefore, I do not agree with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, hence it is rejected. The trial court's file was not put up before me.