SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Hon. K. C. Agarwal, J. I entirely agree. I would, however, like to make a few observations.

2. In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 Hidayatullah, C. J., speaking for the Supreme Court, laid down that questions of the correctness of orders are for the decision of the authorities created by a statute, and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final, or there is an express prohibition under a particular Act.

3. The last sub-section of S. 198 of the Zamindari Abolition Act declares that the orders of the Collector are, subject to a revision under S. 333, "final". This thus bars a suit or any other proceeding in a civil court. The order passed by the Collector or an order passed by the Board of Revenue in a revision filed against the order of the Collector, if any, gains finality between the parties. These orders settle and conclude the rights of the parties. As such the rights cannot subsequently be re-opened.

4. Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act permits declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of la