JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri A.S. Chaudhary, for the petitioner and Smt. Mithilesh Singh and Sri P.N. Mishra, for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.11.2008, passed in revision arising out of proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to chak 333 (area 3-6-12 bigha) and ? share in chak 335 (area 6-19-15 bigha) of village Bethar, pargana Harha, district Unnao, belonging to Smt. Tulsa widow of Ram Autar. The village Bethar was placed under consolidation operation by notification under Section 4 of the Act on 08.08.1981. Shiv Bihari Tiwari (respondent-2), Ram Bihari Tiwari (father of the petitioners) and Ram Autar Tiwari (husband of Smt. Tulsa) were real brother and earlier co-sharers. During consolidation, their joint holdings were partitioned and separate chaks were carved out in their names. Chak-333 was carved out in the name of Smt. Tulsa of the land of her share. Plot 1479 (area 6-19-15 bigha) was their joint grove. During consolidation, it was left as chak out. It remained jointly recorded in their names. In CH Form- 23, chak number 335 was allotted to this grove. 4. After finalisation of chak allotment proceeding, Smt. Tulsa executed a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1997, transferring her chak-333 and her ? share in chak 335 to the petitioners. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Case No. 442) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutation of their names over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed dated 21.06.1997. The matter was compromised between the parties before Assistant Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 30.08.1997, directed for recording the names of petitioners over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed. Amaldaramad of the order was made in CH Form-23 of the aforesaid chaks on 01.09.1997. The petitioners claim that they were in possession of the land in dispute from the date of sale deed. Consolidation proceedings were finalised in the village and notification under Section 52 of the Act, took place on 31.03.2005. Smt. Tulsa died on 07.06.2007. During her life time she never disputed title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. 5. Consolidation proceedings were finalised in the village and notification under Section 52 of the Act, took place on 31.03.2005. Smt. Tulsa died on 07.06.2007. During her life time she never disputed title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. 5. Shiv Bihari Tiwari (respondent-2) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 822) from the aforesaid order, on 12.06.2006, along with delay condonation application. It is alleged that Smt. Tulsa appeared before appellate court and filed an application dated 09.01.2007, denying the interest of respondent-2 in the land in dispute and prayed for dismissing the appeal. The petitioners also contested the appeal. After hearing, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 21.03.2007, held that respondent-2 could not adduce any evidence in respect of alleged mortgage of the land by Smt. Tulsa in his favour. Chak-333 was separately carved out and Chak-335 was jointly carved out in the name of Smt. Tulsa, who executed registered sale deed dated 21.06.1997 in favour of the petitioners of which. Before Assistant Consolidation Officer, the matter was compromised according to the provisions of Rule 25-A and order dated 30.08.1997 was passed on its basis. There was no illegality in the impugned order. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. 6. Respondent-2 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 411) from the aforesaid order. After death of Smt. Tulsa on 07.06.2007, respondent-2 moved an application on 12.09.2007 for obtaining expert examination report in respect of thumb impressions of Smt. Tulsa on the sale deed dated 21.06.1997 and conciliation proceedings before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30.08.1997. The petitioners filed his objection against the aforesaid application on 25.08.2008. In the meantime, record of the revision along with record of the courts below was misplaced. Two sons of respondent-2 were practicing advocate in district court Unnao. On their persuasion, District Bar Association, Unnao passed a resolution dated 30.09.2008 for boycott the consolidation courts, till the record of the revision was traced out. Thereafter, with the consent of the parties, the record was reconstituted. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 11.11.2008 held that although documentary evidence of the record were reconstructed but its verification from oral evidence was necessary. Thereafter, with the consent of the parties, the record was reconstituted. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 11.11.2008 held that although documentary evidence of the record were reconstructed but its verification from oral evidence was necessary. On these finding, he allowed the revision, set aside the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.08.1997 and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for trail on merit. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly Smt. Tulsa was co-sharers, having ? share in joint ancestral property. No one filed any objection, challenging her right over the land in dispute under Section 9 of the Act. Respondent-2 did not file any objection claiming his right on the basis of so called mortgage. In final consolidation record, chak-333 was carved out in her name exclusively, in respect of her ? share in joint ancestral holdings. Plot 1479 (area 6-19-15 bigha) was joint grove of the parties, which was chak out as such chak 335 was allotted to it and it was jointly recorded in the names of all the co-sharers, including Smt. Tulsa, who had ? share in it. Smt. Tulsa executed a registered sale deed dated 21.06.1997 of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an objection (registered as Case No. 442) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutation of their names over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed dated 21.06.1997. The matter was compromised between the parties and Assistant Consolidation Officer recorded conciliation proceeding according to the provisions of Rule 25-A of the Rules and by order dated 30.08.1997, directed for recording the names of petitioners over the land in dispute on the basis of the sale deed. Amaldaramad of the order was done in CH Form-23 of the aforesaid chaks on 01.09.1997. From the date of sale deed, the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute. Smt. Tulsa never disputed title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, during her life time. Rather she disputed the claim of respondent-2 before the appellate court through her application dated 09.01.2007. She died on 07.06.2007. After finalisation of consolidation, the village was notified under Section 52 of the Act, on 31.03.2005. Smt. Tulsa never disputed title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute, during her life time. Rather she disputed the claim of respondent-2 before the appellate court through her application dated 09.01.2007. She died on 07.06.2007. After finalisation of consolidation, the village was notified under Section 52 of the Act, on 31.03.2005. Respondent-2 filed highly time barred appeal on false allegations on 15.06.2006. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has held that respondent-2 could not adduce any evidence relating to his alleged mortgage of the year 1965 of the land in dispute. Further it was found that there was no illegality in the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.08.1997. In any case, his claim on the basis of alleged mortgage was barred under Sections 11-A and 49 of the Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation, who had reconstituted the record, ought to have decided the case on merit. He did not find out any illegality in the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. Without there being any findings, in this respect, he allowed the revision on wholly irrelevant consideration that although records were reconstructed but it requires verification from oral evidence. He has failed to controvert the findings of the appellate court that respondent-2 could have no claim over the land in dispute. Order of respondent-1 is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, counsel for respondent-2 submitted that the writ petition has been filed against the order of remand as such it is not maintainable. The petitioners have opportunity to agitate their grievances before the Consolidation Officer. The sale deed dated 21.06.1997 and conciliation proceeding before Assistant Consolidation Officer are fabricated documents. No proclamation was served upon Smt. Tulsa nor she appeared before Assistant Consolidation Officer. Chairman and Member of Consolidation Committee have filed their affidavits, denying their signature/thumb impression on the conciliation proceeding. Respondent-2 has filed an application before Deputy Director of Consolidation for obtaining expert examination report in respect of thumb impressions of Smt. Tulsa on the sale deed dated 21.06.1997 and conciliation proceedings before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30.08.1997. The petitioners filed his objection against the aforesaid application on 25.08.2008, which shows they are avoiding from correct fact being come on record. Since date of mortgage in 1965, he was in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioners filed his objection against the aforesaid application on 25.08.2008, which shows they are avoiding from correct fact being come on record. Since date of mortgage in 1965, he was in possession of the land in dispute. Due to honour and respect of Smt. Tulsa, who was his real sister-in-law, he avoided to get his name recorded over the land in dispute during her lifetime although in view of Section 164 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 he had become its owner and Smt. Tulsa had no right over it. False allegations have been made against the sons of respondent-2 that they were instrumental in misplacing the record or in respect of resolution of District Bar Association. The alleged application before appellate court is also a fabricated document. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly that Smt. Tulsa survived up to 07.06.2007 but she did not challenge the sale deed dated 21.06.1997 and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.08.1997. In case Smt. Tulsa was supporting the case of respondent-2 then she could have join as the appellant in the appeal filed by respondent-2. She did not join as appellant. On the other hand she filed an application dated 09.01.2007 before the appellate court and supported the case of the petitioners. Respondent-2 could not dare to challenge the genuineness of the sale deed, thumb impression of Smt. Tulsa on conciliation proceeding and on the application dated 09.01.2007 before the appellate court during the life time of Smt. Tulsa. The alleged affidavits of Chairman and Member of Consolidation Committee were also not filed before appellate court. No reason has been given for not filing the affidavit before appellate court. The appellate court relying upon materials the record held that sale deed dated 21.06.1997 was a registered document, whose execution was admitted by Smt. Tulsa before Assistant Consolidation Officer and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.08.1997 did not suffer from any illegality. Before allowing the revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to set aside these findings but he did not record any finding in this respect. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on an irrelevant ground. Records of revision and the courts below were lost. Deputy Director of Consolidation reconstructed records. Before allowing the revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to set aside these findings but he did not record any finding in this respect. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision on an irrelevant ground. Records of revision and the courts below were lost. Deputy Director of Consolidation reconstructed records. He ought to have decided the revision on merits. Without setting aside the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation on merit, it was not proper for him to remand the case to Consolidation Officer for trial of the case on merit. 10. Locus standi of respondent-2 to file appeal against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer passed in mutation proceedings has been challenged by the petitioners. A perusal of memorandum of appeal shows that respondent-2 has raised only ground that Smt. Tulsa took Rs. 50000/- from him in 1965 and mortgaged the land in dispute to him and in view of Section 164 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, he was owner of the land in dispute. Appellate Court recorded a finding that respondent-2 has failed to prove his mortgage and thus he had no locus standi to file the appeal. On these findings, appellate court has dismissed the appeal of respondent-2. In such circumstances Deputy Director of Consolidation before allowing the revision, ought to have decided locus standi of respondent-2. But he has illegally failed to exercise his jurisdiction and mechanically allowed the revision on wholly irrelevant consideration that although record has been reconstructed but it was required to be verified from oral evidence of the parties. 11. The petitioners have raised a ground that claim of respondent-2, if any is barred under Section 11-A and 49 of the Act. They have stated that notification of the village under Section 4 was taken place on 08.08.1981 and Section 52 on 31.05.2005. The appeal was filed on 15.06.2006. These facts have not been denied. During consolidation, respondent-2 did not file any objection claiming his right over the land in dispute on the basis of alleged mortgage deed. As such his claim, if any, is barred under Section-11-A and 49 of the Act and the appeal filed by him was not maintainable. The appeal was filed on 15.06.2006. These facts have not been denied. During consolidation, respondent-2 did not file any objection claiming his right over the land in dispute on the basis of alleged mortgage deed. As such his claim, if any, is barred under Section-11-A and 49 of the Act and the appeal filed by him was not maintainable. Relevant provisions are quoted below: - "Section-11-A- Bar on objection.- No question in respect of - (i) claims to land, (ii) partition of joint holdings, and (iii) valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure-holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under Section 10, relating to the consolidation area, (which has been raised under Section 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section), but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding. Section-49. Bar to civil jurisdiction.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 4 or adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 12. Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey, AIR 1991 SC 249 held that from a perusal of Section 49 it is evident that declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under Section 4(2) and adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, had to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act only and the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue courts to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, has been taken away. The language used in Section 49 is wide and comprehensive. Declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in the area covered by the notification under Section 4(2) of the Act and adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, would cover adjudication of questions as to title in respect of the said lands. Same view has been taken in Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1173 , Narender Singh v. Jai Bhagwan, AIR 2005 SC 582 and Madan Mohan Mishra v. Chandrika Pandey, (2009) 3 SCC 720 . 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.11.2008 is set aside. The orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.08.1997 and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.03.2007 are affirmed. Petition allowed.