RAM LAKHAN Vs. GAON SABHA KUSMAHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gaon Sabha filed a suit for an injunction restraining the Petitioners from interfering and changing certain plot of land as agricultural land which was alleged in the plaint as Usar and Banjar. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal it was allowed. The matter came to the High Court where the decree was set aside and the matter remanded to the lower appellate court for re -consideration. In the meanwhile a notification under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published in relation to the village where the land in dispute lies. Before the lower appellate court, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the suit was barred by Sec. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and was liable to be abated under Sec. 5(2 -A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The lower appellate court rejected this plea, hence the present writ petition.

(2.) In my opinion, Usar and Banjar is also land within the meaning of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is normally connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry. The definition of land under Sec. 5(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act includes even the site of house or similar other structure which is part of the holding. Under the circumstances the consolidation courts had jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and he has already decided that matter. Under the circumstances the civil court has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and the suit was liable to be abated.