M. H. BEG, J. :- This reference to a Full Bench arises out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh, rejecting the petitioners' objection under Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as it stood before its amendment in 1958. The petitioners' objection before the Consolidation authorities was that their names were wrongly omitted from the statement of proposals published under Section 19 of the Act. These statements in C. H. Form 23, prescribed by Rule 46, must contain a number of particulars laid down in Section 19 of the Act. Among the details to be entered in C. H. Form 23, are the name and parentage of each tenure-holder and the class of tenure of each plot in the village which is undergoing consolidation proceedings. The petitioners claimed to be Sirdars of plots nos. 1011 and 1191 in their village. Their objection was rejected by the Consolidation authorities, in proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act, on the ground that this question had already been decided between the same parties in favour of Suraj Bhan, opposite party no. 5, who had been held to be the Bhumidhar in previous proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.

2. The petitioners contended that the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act had not resulted in a final order, inasmuch as a revision application under section 48 of the Act was pending against the decision in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, when the petitioners' objections under Section 20 of the Act were rejected by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. The Deputy Director, however, had revision applications arising out of proceedings both under Section 12 and under Section 20 of the Act before him. He decided them together by means of the same order on 5-8-1961. The Deputy Director (C) laconically observed that he was unable to find any substantial irregularity or illegality in the orders of the authorities below him and dismissed both the revision applications. The result was that the Settlement Officer and the Consolidation Officer had disposed of the petitioners' objection under section 20 of the Act before the revision application of the petitioners under S. 48 of the Act, pending against the decision of the petitioners' case under Section 12 of the Act with regard to Plots Nos. 1011 and 1191, was finally disposed of.

3. The petitioners' submission was that proceedings under section 12 of the Act were superseded by proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. This contention was supported by a reference to section 22(2) which read, after an amendment, as follows:-

"Upon the publication of the Statement of Proposals under sub-section (1) of the Section 20 all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision, in which the question of title or a question whether any person is a Sirdar, Adhivasi or Asami in relation to the same land has been raised, shall be stayed."

4. The petitioners urged that, even if the principles of res judicata were to be found embodied in various sections of the Act, for proceedings at various stages, the principles were only applicable to a case in which there was a final decision: Section 22(2) of the Act was utilised to build the argument that proceedings under the Act, which were not concluded or finalised, were meant to be stayed so that it followed that an adjudication under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act was meant to take place in all cases where the prior proceedings under Section 12 of the Act had not reached finality.

5. A still bolder stand, adopted by Mr. Sripat Narain Singh on behalf of the petitioners was that all matters relating to right or title were meant to be really agitated or to be reagitated and determined afresh by means of an elaborrate trial