JUDGMENT : S.K. Singh, J. By means of this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5th March, 1975 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by which revision filed by the opposite party has been allowed and by condoning the delay in filing objection, matter has been sent to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the claim of the parties on the merits. 2. Parties counsel has been heard at some length. 3. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that basic year record shows name of the Petitioners as bhumidhar over the land in question. Objection was filed by the opposite party on 31st May, 1974, which was time-barred. It has been stated in para 4 of the objection that between the parties at an earlier stage the litigation has taken place in which it was finally held that the land in dispute is abadi of the objector but thereafter land was recorded as grove of the Petitioners. It was further stated that in the consolidation Partal the map has not been correctly prepared so prayer was made that the name of the Petitioner be expunged and the land be recorded as abadi. The Consolidation Officer by its judgment dated 30th June, 1975, by giving finding that no satisfactory explanation has been given in respect to the delay dismissed objection on the ground of limitation. In revision filed by the opposite party Deputy Director of Consolidation by giving finding that ground taken by the objector about lack of knowledge in respect to correct entry and position of the spot in view of the abadi/grove cannot be said to be motivated and therefore, believing the explanation given by the objector delay in filing the same was condoned and the matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that irrespective of the objection filed by the objector being barred by time or not as by the objection prayer was made that after expunging the name of the Petitioner, land be recorded as abadi it was not maintainable as consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to declare the land as abadi of the objector and thus as proceedings pursuant to the order of remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation will be a futile exercise, impugned order is liable to be interfered by this Court. It has been further submitted that irrespective of the entry in the name of the Petitioners of their bhumidhari in the consolidation proceedings it is always open for the opposite party to the file civil suit for declaration about the land to be abadi and at the same time for declaration of his right in the land and, therefore, proceedings pursuant to the order of the remand will be just multiplicity and will be nothing but sheer harassment to both the parties. In support of the aforesaid submission Sri. Misra, learned advocate has placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in case of Kamla Shanker 1979 RD 78. 5. In response to the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation only delay in filing the objection has been condoned and the rival claim of the parties including that of the objector is to be examined by the Consolidation Officer and thus, it is not a case for interference by this Court. It is further submitted that as nature of land is being claimed to be abadi, consolidation authorities have every jurisdiction to decide that question and, therefore, objection filed by objector cannot be said to be not maintainable. 6. After hearing arguments as noted above, this Court has examined the matter. 7. There appears to be no dispute about the fact that Petitioners are recorded as bhumidhar over the land and the nature of the land has been mentioned as grove. The objection has been filed by the opposite party claiming expunction of the name of the Petitioners and at the same time for recording the land as his abadi. In view of the aforesaid there cannot be any manner of doubt that so far claim of the opposite party that land be recorded as his abadi is concerned, that is beyond the scope of examination and acceptance by the consolidation authorities. Needless to say that the consolidation authorities cannot declare the rights of any party in abadi land as this is the concern of the civil court, but at the same time. This Court is of the view that so far declaration and adjudication about the nature of the land is concerned it is within competence of the consolidation authorities to examine it and to decide the same accordingly. This Court is of the view that so far declaration and adjudication about the nature of the land is concerned it is within competence of the consolidation authorities to examine it and to decide the same accordingly. After decision is respect to the nature of the land if it is bhumidhari, the entry in the name of the recorded person is to continue and even otherwise on the declaration of the land as abadi as consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to declare abadi of either of the party, entry in the name of the recorded tenure holder is to continue and consolidation authorities will only make entry in the relevant extract in respect to the nature of the land as abadi. In the event nature of the land is not held to be abadi by the consolidation authorities and land continue to be recorded as bhumidhari/grove of a party, on filing suit by the claimant claiming the land to be abadi and his rights therein may arise a situation which may give rise to a dispute that whether the claim about the land is barred by Section 49 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. Accordingly this Court is of the view that as and when consolidation proceedings are on and any party files an objection claiming nature of the land to be abadi and the same belong to him the only jurisdiction with the consolidation authorities will be to decide the nature of the land and not rights and title therein of that objector. Reliance as has been placed on the decision given in the case of Kamla Shanker (supra) also on examination supports this view inasmuch as in the decision referred above on the objection filed by the objector claiming nature of land as abadi the decision given by the consolidation authorities to the extent that the nature of land will be recorded as abadi was affirmed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid so far the nature of the land is concerned, as objector is claiming rights for which avertment has been made in the objection he will get the dispute about nature of land decided by the consolidating authorities leaving adjudication about rights and title by the civil court. In view of the aforesaid so far the nature of the land is concerned, as objector is claiming rights for which avertment has been made in the objection he will get the dispute about nature of land decided by the consolidating authorities leaving adjudication about rights and title by the civil court. On the facts and for the reasons indicated above, this Court is of the view that if this adjudication is left for the civil court there may arise complication on account of finality of the entry in the consolidation proceedings about nature of land as bhumidhari land. Accordingly this Court is convinced that Deputy Director of Consolidation by condoning the delay in filing the objection and by remitting back the matter to the Consolidation Officer has not committed any error and thus this Court by making clarification that consolidation authorities while entertaining objection of the opposite party will only decide nature of the land and will make entry accordingly keeping in mind the guidelines as has been given by this Court in the decision as has been rendered in the case of Kamla Shanker (supra). As the matter is quite old the consolidation authorities will decide the matter with all expedition without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to either of the party. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court declines to interfere in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation and this writ petition fails and is dismissed in the light of observation as made in this judgment.