JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Jokhan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents on admission of second appeal and perused the records. 2. The plaintiffs have file original suit No. 150/1984 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 26.10.1977 executed on behalf of Dhan Dei in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2. The plaint case in brief was that plaintiffs are owner and tenure holder of disputed agricultural property, and are in possession of it. The sale-deed was sought to be cancelled on the grounds that this is a forged deed not executed by Dhan Dei who was not in need of money to sell her property, this deed was without payment of consideration and was illegal because it was executed during consolidation proceedings but without permission of consolidation Court. The plaintiffs also prayed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere in the position of disputed property. 3. It has been admitted fact that before initiation of consolidation proceedings name of Smt. Dhan Dei was recorded over disputed land, she executed sale-deed of said property. But during beginning of the consolidation operation the name of father of plaintiff-appellants was mutated after death of Smt. Dhan Dei. But the defendant-respondents file appeal in consolidation Court, in which compromise deed was filed on behalf of parties including present appellants. Said appeal was allowed and name of defendant-respondents was mutated over disputed land. It is also admitted fact that after completion of consolidation operation, the name of defendant-respondents is still recorded, and appellants have moved the revenue Court for mutation of their name over disputed agricultural land which is still pending. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although several grounds were raised in memorandum of appeal but he is pressing only one ground as to whether the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.7.1984 will bar the original suit and suit can be treated as barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. His argument was that the findings of lower Courts on these points are erroneous, so appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. His argument was that the findings of lower Courts on these points are erroneous, so appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove those grounds which are mentioned in the plaint for cancellation of the sale-deed in question so the relief regarding cancellation cannot be granted to the plaintiff-appellant, and unless said sale-deed is cancelled the the plaintiff-appellant cannot get relief of injunction. He further submitted that the ancillary relief in the suit was cancellation of sale-deed and injunction, but the main relief was declaration of title of agricultural land which has already been decided by the consolidation Court; and now can be decided by revenue Court only. Since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the real dispute between the parties, therefore suit is barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. So appeal should be dismissed. 6. Without cancellation of sale-deed in question, the plaintiff-appellant cannot claim his rights over disputed property. So it has to be seen as to whether then appellant had been able to prove the grounds for cancellation of sale-deed in question or not. In plaint the sale-deed was sought to be cancelled on the grounds that this is a forged deed not executed by Dhan Dei who was not in need of money to sell her property, this deed was without payment of consideration and was illegal because it was executed during consolidation proceedings but without permission of consolidation Court. In this regard there are specific findings of trial Court, as confirmed by the first appellate Court that the defendant-respondents have properly proved the execution of deed dated 26.10.1977 executed by Smt. Dhan Dei in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2, the plaintiff-appellant had not been able to prove that Smt. Dhan Dei had no need of money at the time of execution of said sale-deed, or said sale-deed was executed without payment of consideration money. Lower Court have also held that in present matter the vendor had sold whole share of her property so there was no requirement of permission of consolidation Court, and also that it has been proved that said sale-deed was executed with freewill and without any fraud or misrepresentation. Lower Court have also held that in present matter the vendor had sold whole share of her property so there was no requirement of permission of consolidation Court, and also that it has been proved that said sale-deed was executed with freewill and without any fraud or misrepresentation. The conclusions of lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of entire evidences available on record, and are apparently correct and acceptable. Such finding, being neither infirm or perverse, cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. Therefore the plaintiff-appellant had failed to prove the grounds for cancellation of sale-deed dated 26.10.1977 executed by Smt. Dhan Dei. So on merits his suit was rightly dismissed. 7. The only issue which has been pressed in the present second appeal is as to whether suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The trial Court and first appellate Court had decided this issue with regard to bar under Section 49 of the Act. Section 4, 5 and 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 being germane are quoted below: “4. Declaration and notification regarding consolidation.— (1) (a) The State Government may, where it; Is of opinion that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations, make a declaration to that effect in the Gazette, whereupon it shall become lawful for any officer or authority who may be empowered in this behalf by the District Deputy Director of consolidation- (i) to enter upon and survey, in connection with rectangulation or otherwise and to take levels of any land in such area; (ii) to fix pillars in connection with rectangulation, and (iii) to do all acts necessary to ascertain the suitability of the area for consolidation operations. (b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause public notice of the declaration issued under Clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said drstrict or part thereof.” “5. (b) The District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause public notice of the declaration issued under Clause (a) to be given at convenient places in the said drstrict or part thereof.” “5. Effect of notification under Section 4(2).—(1) Upon the publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) 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 or Sub-section (1) of Section 6, as the case may be, ensue in the area to which the notification under Section 4 (2) relates, namely- (a) the district or part thereof, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations and the duty of maintaining the record of rights and preparing the village map, the field book and the annual register of each village shall be performed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall maintain or prepare them, as the case may be, in manner prescribed; (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 the 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 pisci-culture and poultry farming; or (ii) ****** Provided that a tenure holder may continue to use his holding, or any part thereof, for any purpose for which it was in use prior to the date specified in the notification issued under Sub-section (2) of Section 4. (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-section (2) of Section 4, the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated. Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of-Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be, shall stand vacated; (b) Such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.” “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 right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the 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 the Act.” 8. The bar contained in Section 49 contemplates bar of entertainment of suit by a civil or revenue Court in respect of following: (a) the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders, (b) adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings, and (c) adjudication of any right in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that any adjudication done with regard to land lying in the area in which a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued operates a bar of reagitating in any other revenue or Civil Court. 9. In view of the above, it is clear that any adjudication done with regard to land lying in the area in which a notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been issued operates a bar of reagitating in any other revenue or Civil Court. Second limb of Section also creates a bar with regard to adjudication of any other right regarding which proceedings could or ought to have been taken under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 10. 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 provision 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 the 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. This view also finds support from the other provisions of the Act. 11. In present matter the the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.7.1984 had finally decided the dispute of ownership of disputed agricultural land in favour of defendant-respondents. Said Court was competent Court to decide said matter. Therefore said matter cannot be re-agitated in Civil Court indirectly by plaintiff-appellants in garb of suit for cancellation of sale-deed or suit for permanent injunction. Such suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The finding of lower Court in this regard is found correct and is hereby confirmed. 12. Therefore said matter cannot be re-agitated in Civil Court indirectly by plaintiff-appellants in garb of suit for cancellation of sale-deed or suit for permanent injunction. Such suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The finding of lower Court in this regard is found correct and is hereby confirmed. 12. In present matter the basis of claim of his relief sought in plaint is bhumidhari rights acquired by plaintiff-appellant. Even in the relief clause of the plaint, it is prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in the bhumidhar rights and possession of plaintiff disputed property as enemy property, therefore, admittedly, the plaint case and relief sought by appellant in his plaint is based on his alleged bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-appellant. The sale-deed in favour of defendants can be cancelled and they can restrained from interfering in bhumidhari rights of plaintiff, as prayed in plaint, only if they are declared bhumidhar or their bhumidhari rights are formally recognized by Civil Court. 13. The suit of plaintiff-appellant has been based on claim of his ownership and bhumidhari rights over disputed agricultural land, for which the plea of bar of suit under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was taken by defendants in their written-statement. Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under: “331. Cognizance of suits, etc under this Act.—(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no Court other than a Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding an~hing contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (5 of 1908) take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application: Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect of any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II in so far as they relate to suit, application or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof; Explanation—If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue Court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the Civil Court may not be identical to that which the revenue Court would have granted.” 14. This section provides that no Court other than Court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in C.P.C., take cognizance of any suit, application or proceedings, mentioned in Column 3 thereof, or of a suit, application or proceedings based on cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. In Schedule II of this Act serial number-34 of Column-3 deals with ‘Suit for declaration of rights’; and in front of it in column-4 the name of Court of original jurisdiction is given as ‘Assistant Collector, 1st Class’. 15. The present case of plaintiff-appellant is based on claim that he is owner and bhumidhar of disputed land. Admittedly the name of defendants-respondents are recorded as bhumidhar on disputed land i.e. agricultural ‘land’ as defined in UPZA & LR Act. Even the alleged relief of permanent injunction regarding disputed land is also based on the relief of declaration of title of disputed agricultural ‘land’. Therefore it is explicitly clear that only the Court of Assistant Collector has jurisdiction to grant these reliefs, and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit or other proceeding based on cause of action for declaration of ownership rights of such agricultural land. So this finding of first appellate Court is perfectly correct and is being upheld that plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of bhumidhari rights which is within exclusive jurisdiction of revenue Courts. From above discussion, it is clear and proved that main relief sought by plaintiff-appellants are based on declaration of their alleged right of bhumidhari over disputed agricultural land but it cannot be granted to the appellants, and therefore, claim of plaintiff/appellant is barred by Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, so appellant is not entitled for any relief claim in spite of his possession. 16. When an agricultural land had undergone in the consolidation proceedings, then all suits relating to such land would be abated and jurisdiction to decide all rights, title relating to it, would shift to Consolidation Court only. Admittedly after completion of consolidation proceedings and preparation of land records, the jurisdiction of declaration of title of agricultural land goes exclusively in jurisdiction of revenue Courts. Admittedly after completion of consolidation proceedings and preparation of land records, the jurisdiction of declaration of title of agricultural land goes exclusively in jurisdiction of revenue Courts. In present case consolidation proceedings of disputed lands were undergoing during proceedings of the trial Court for which documents of consolidation proceedings of Form-45 was adduced in evidence. Therefore the suit of the plaintiff-appellant could not be heard and decided by Civil Court for determining his alleged bhumidhari rights. After consolidation proceedings, the disputed property was declared as enemy property within ownership of State. In revenue records it is recorded accordingly. Therefore unless it is declared otherwise by competent revenue Court, its title shall remain vest in the State. Therefore the bhumidhari rights of plaintiff-appellant over disputed land cannot be accepted, recognized or determined by the Civil Court. So the plaintiff’s suit for the relief of claim in plaint was barred by provisions of Section-49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Therefore the period during the period when consolidation proceedings were being carried out suit in hand was barred by Section-49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, and after completion of said consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs’ claim in original suit is barred by provisions of Section 331 of UPZA & LR Act. So the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the actual relief sought by plaintiff/appellant which can be granted only after declaring him or recognizing him as bhumidhar with transferable rights of disputed agricultural property. In these circumstances, there appears no error, irregularity or illegality in the judgments of two Courts below. 17. These points relate to question of law, but are not substantial question of law. On the basis of admitted facts mentioned in plaint itself, plaintiff’s suit was barred by provisions of law because plaintiff being not recorded as tenure holder is not entitled to get the requested relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are recorded tenure holders of disputed in revenue records, after the litigation before the consolidation Court and the judgment of Settlement Officer Consolidation whose judgment had become final and on basis of which revenue records were prepared. 18. 18. On examination of the reasoning recorded by the trial Court, which are affirmed by the learned first appellate Court in first appeal, I am of the view that the judgments of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are well reasoned, based upon proper appreciation of the entire record, especially the plaint. No question of substantial question of law was involved in the case before this Court. No perversity or infirmity is found in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court that has been affirmed by the first appellate Court to warrant interference in this appeal. None of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs can be sustained. 19. In view of the above, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.