J.C. Shah, J.
1. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act was brought into force by notification of the Government of U. P. on July 1, 1952. With regard to survey Nos. 647 and 639 of the village of Daulatpur, there were disputes which resulted in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.Code. They were decided against the present appellants. On August 23, 1958, the appellants filed suit No. 387 of 1958 in the court of the Munsiff, Hawaii, Saharanpur, against the parties successful in the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. for a declaration of title to survey Nos. 647 and 639 and some other lands. The appellants claimed that they had acquired bhumidari rights over the lands by virtue of the Act I of 1951. The suit was pending. During the pendency of the suit, a notification was issued under the U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, applying the provisions of the Act to the village of Daulatpur. On application made by the defendants in the suit, the suit was stayed. The appellants application was rejected, but we are informed at the Bar that in appeal from the decree in the suit, all the proceedings have been stayed. In the meanwhile, the appellants applied to the consolidation officer, contending that the land in dispute being 'grove' land, the Consolidation of Holdings Act had no application and the proceedings commenced by the consolidation officer were without jurisdiction. This application was rejected on July 13, 1961. The matter reached the Deputy Director of Consolidation in second appeal, and the Deputy Director held that the provisions of the Consolidation Act applied to 'grove' lands. He held that it was within the purview of the consolidation courts to adjudicate upon the title in respect of the 'tenure holders' and that no other court civil or revenue could entertain any suit or .proceedings with respect to rights in such lands for which notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act had been issued. Relying upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kumbha Karan v. S. C. Lal Saxena 1961 All LJ 698 the Deputy Director observed/that 'grove' lands were excluded 'for the purpose of consolidation' from the operation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, but for the purpose of preparation of record the decision about the title of the groves was essential and the consolidation court had to decide the dispute in regard to the title to the grove. He further observed that the proceedings before him were under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consolidation Act, where a decision had to be taken about the entries in the records and the disputed cases had to be decided by the 'consolidation court'. On that view he dismissed the appeal. In conformity with the order, the proceedings were taken up before the consolidation officer for adjudication of the dispute as to title on their merit. Those proceedings were decided against the appellants. An appeal filed against that order was dismissed. The matter was taken again to the High Court of Allahabad (sic) in second appeal, and the Deputy Director confirmed the order. Against that order, a petition was filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the order. In the grounds In support of the petition, it was mentioned that the land in dispute was 'grove land'. But the only orders which were challenged before the High Court were the orders-annexures 5, 6 and 7, i.e. , the orders of the consolidation authorities which decided file dispute on the merits. No express challenge was raised against the validity of the order made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, holding that for the purposes of preparation of record, the consolidation authorities were entitled to hold an enquiry. The High Court summarily rejected the petition. Against that order, this appeal with special leave has been preferred.
2. Now the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hold-tog that for the purposes of Sections 9 and 10 for the purpose of preparation of record, the consolidation officer was entitled to give a decision about the title of the grove land, was rendered on the 8th December, 1961. Thereafter, the appellants took their chance of obtaining decision in their favour before the consolidation authority on the merits of the dispute and also in appeal and in second appeal. Having failed all along the line, they sought to challenge the order by a petition before the High Court It is conceded before us that there is no decision of this Court on the question whether 'grove' land is exempt from the operation of the consolidation officer In respect of proceedings commenced by him and in all circumstances. We do not think having regard to the circumstances that after nine years, after the date of the order made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, we will be justified in allowing the appellants to canvass the correctness of a decision which was acquiesced in for all these years, and now allow the appellants for the first time in this Court to contend that all the proceedings which have since been taken and decided were without authority.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.