YASHODA NANDAN, J. :- Special Appeals Nos. 403 and 621 of 1967 which arose out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge came up before a Division Bench consisting of two of us. The appeals involved a consideration of the nature, extent of and conditions under which the Compensation Statement signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer in accordance with Section 240-J of U. P. Act 1 of 1951 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - assumes finality. Since there was considerable divergence of opinion on these questions in reported and unreported decisions of this Court, the Bench referred the following questions for answer to a larger Bench :-

"1. Whether the finality of Compensation Statement under Sec. 240-J, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act extinguishes the rights and title of the land-holder and the land-holder is debarred from showing in the subsequent proceedings that the land is not held by Adhivasi?

2. Whether the finality of Compensation Statement under Section 240-J is final between land-holder and State only and not between landholder and person claiming Adhivasi rights?

3. Whether the finality amounts to an adjudication of title between the land-holder and the person claiming Adhivasi right and the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata applies?

4. Whether the land-holder against whom Compensation Statement has become final and who has received compensation has no locus standi to reagitate his rights in respect of the land in question?

5. What is the nature of proceedings under Section 240-D of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and their effect in a regular title suit or proceeding ?

6. What is the meaning of the word 'final' used in Section 240-J (2) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ?"

2. Identical problems arose before one of us in Writ Petition No. 6097 of 1970 and consequently the learned Single Judge hearing it also referred the same questions for consideration by and answers thereof to a large Bench. As a result of the references, these questions came up for consideration before a Full Bench consisting of three Judges. During the hearing of the references some doubts were entertained with regard to the correctness of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Maqbool Raza v. Joint Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1968 All LJ 89 : (AIR 1969 All 26) (FB). It was contended before the Full Bench that the Bench which decided 1968 All LJ 89 : (AIR 1969 All 26) (FB) (supra) was concerned with the effect of the Compensation Statement finalised under Section 240-J on rival claims to Adhivasi rights and not with a case where the land-holder was claiming that the person shown as Adhivasi in the Compensation Statement was really not so and that he (the land-holder) continued to retain his title over the disputed land despite the proceedings under Chapter IX-A as is the case in the two special appeals and the writ petition before us. The Full Bench consequently referred the questions mentioned earlier for consideration by a larger Bench. This is how these cases happen to be before us.

3. During the hearing before us learned counsel representing the parties agreed that the last two questions of the order of reference either do not arise or the answers to them would be covered by the answers to the first four questions. We consequently do not propose to answer those two questions. The questions that have been referred to us have been the subject-matter of consideration in a bead-string of decisions, many of which have interpreted the Full Bench decision in 1968 All LJ 89 : (AIR 1969 All 26) (FIB) (supra) in diverse ways.

4. The Act as originally enacted provided for abolition of rights of intermediaries and their vesting in the State and simultaneous conferment of rights on the actual tillers of the soil. It created three classes of tenure-holders, viz. (1) Bhumidhars, (2) Sirdars and (3) Asamis.