The main legal point established in the judgment is that the present proceeding was not barred on the principle of res-judicata or under Section 49 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, and the parties were allowed to adduce evidence and challenge the findings in the appeal.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri R. N. Yadav for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Sen Pal for the respondents-4 and 5 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav for respondent-14.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 21.2.2011 by which the preliminary issues raised by the petitioners regarding res-judicata and the second proceeding was barred under Section 49 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act etc were decided in favour of the contesting respondents and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.8.2013 dismissing the revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order.

3. The dispute relates to land of plot no. 68 and 111 of Village Narendrapur Post Dharmapur, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar Distt. Jaunpur. In basic consolidation year plot no. 68 was recorded in the names of Banshu, Ram Raj, Kamla sons of Sukkhu (now represented by petitioners) and Raj Nath and Raj Kumari (now represented by respondents- 10 and 13) and plot no. 111 was recorded in the name of Raj Dei W/o Shiv Das and Banshu and others. One objection has been filed by Pawan Kumar and Arun Kumar, respondents- 4 and 5 for deleting the names of Banshu and others and for recording their names over the land in dispute on the basis of Will executed by Sitabi Devi in their favour. The Consolidation Officer framed as many as twelve issues in the aforesaid case. On the application of the petitioners, Issue Nos. 7 to 12 were decided as preliminary issues. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.2.2011 held that amaldaramad dated 31.5.1960 by which names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute has been challenged by respondents- 4 and 5 and these amaldaramad appears to be fabricated entry in the original khatauni. The petitioners have not filed any document to show that CH Form 11, 23, 41, 45 and 48 were prepared in their names in previous consolidation proceeding, as such, the present proceeding are neither barred on the principle of res-judicata nor barred under Section 49 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. So far as, issues relating to the objection being time barred and barred under Section 115 of Evidence Act- 1872 and not maintainable as well as the Consolidation Court has no jurisdiction, all these issues have been decided against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2737 of 2011-12) against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by order dated 6.8.2013.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have raised various grounds in the memorandum of revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither considered any of the grounds nor recorded any finding in respect of the various grounds raised by the petitioners and revision has been dismissed without application of mind to the grounds raised by the petitioners. He further submits that issue as to whether the land in dispute was jointly acquired by Banshu and Mathura through patta dated 30.7.1938, has been finally decided by order dated 18.1.1963 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Second Appeal No. 537/1962-63 between the parties and this order operates as res-judicata against Sitabi Devi. The present proceeding is second consolidation proceeding as such the present proceeding is also barred under Section 49 of UPCH Act. He further submits that the certified copy of order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.1.1963 has been filed by the petitioners in Civil Suit No. 176 of 1978 which was filed by the petitioners against Sitabi Devi in respect of the house of the parties and it has been referred in the judgment of IVth Additional Civil Judge, Jaunpur dated 21.8.1986 and the suit filed by the petitioners was decreed. The appeal i.e. Civil Appeal No. 170 of 1986 filed against it, was dismissed by the VIth Additional District Judge by judgment dated 3.9.1988 and Second Appeal No. 1630 of 1998 has been filed but neither it has been admitted so far nor any