ROOP NARAIN Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Aug. 28, 1962, we dismissed this Special Appeal summarily and reserved our reasons, which we now proceed to give. The dispute is about a plot of land which was a grove of the appellant in 1363 Fasli. In 1364 Fasli a notification under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, was issued in respect of the area in which the grove was situated. Consolidation to be effected under the Act is of holdings excluding land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Sec. 4 was issued, vide Sec. 3(2). Accordingly, the grove of the appellant was to be excluded from the scheme of consolidation; it was not to be treated as included in a tenure-holder's holding. The Assistant Consolidation Officer prepared a statement of plots and tenure-holders as required by Sec. 11(1), showing, among others, a list of all plots whether or not comprised in the holding of a tenure-holder together with the soil classification and a list of plots of each tenure-holder showing the areas excluded from consolidation. The statement is then to be published and objections are to be invited; all objections that are filed against it are to be decided by the Consolidation Officer, vide Secs. 11(2) and 12. The decision of the Consolidation Officer is "except as otherwise provided by or under this Act, . . . . . final," vide sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 12. It appears that in I364F. the grove in dispute lost its character as such and presumably on account of this fact, it was not excluded from consolidation in the statement prepared under Sec. 11. No objection, however, was filed against its non-exclusion by the appellant. A consolidation scheme consists of a statement of principles prepared under Sec. 14, and a statement of proposals prepared under Sec. 19. The former statement has to show-