JUDGMENT

D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a Special Appeal by Ghasi against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of Waqf Alalaulad, respondent No. 1, and thereby not only quashing the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but also restoring the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) .

2. There has been considerable litigation between the contesting parties. Hamid Ali originally instituted a suit against Ghasi for declaration, permanent injunction and, in the alternative, for possession, with the allegation that he was the Bhumidhar of the disputed land, which was a grove land. It was held that the Waqf Alalaulad, and not the plaintiff, was the grove-holder of the plot in dispute. These words have been taken from the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge in an appeal preferred by Hamid All against the dismissal of his suit. Thereafter Waqf Alalaulad through Hamid All instituted another suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of Ghasi, on the ground that the plot was the intermediary's grove of Waqf Alalaulad and Ghasi being merely an asami was liable to ejectment. Before the suit could be finally decided, consolidation operations started with the result that the Second Appeal pending before the Board of Revenue was stayed and Waqf Alalaulad made a fresh objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection, but the order was set aside in appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who recorded the finding that the land was the grove land of the objector, Waqf Alalaulad, and Ghasi was merely an asami, and not a sirdar. Ghasi preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order. The Deputy Director did not record any finding on the material question whether the disputed land was grove land. He recorded a finding on three points only: he held that Waqf Alalaulad was not acted upon; that Hamid Ali could assert that the Waqf Alalaulad was the Bhumidhar, even though he had initially claimed such rights in his own personal capacity and that even if Ghasi was an asami he became sirdar by virtue of Section 204 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on account of no suit for ejectment having been instituted within the period of one year then prescribed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.

3. In the end, the claim of Waqf Alalaulad was also dismissed on the ground that Compensation Statement under Section 240-G of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition ' and Land Reforms Act had become final.

4. While disposing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Consolidation the learned Single Judge held that the claim for ejectment of Ghasi as asami was not i-4 barred by limitation and that Ghasi was estopped from raising the tenancy rights of Waqf Alalaulad, i.e.. to contend that Hamid All in his personal capacity, and not the Wag f Alalaulad, was the Bhumidhar. The effect of the Compensation Statement does not appear to have been raised before the learned Single Judge. It appears to us that this point was not raised on account of a Full Bench decision of this Court laying down clearly that the finality of the Compensation Statement does not act as res judicata and the aggrieved party can raise the question in a regular proceeding.

5. None of the points which appealed to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to give a judgment in favour of Ghasi appear to be justified by law. How can it be said that the Waqf Alalaulad duly registered has not been acted upon? If the Mutwalli was a person other than the maker of the Waqf, or a beneficiary or a co-beneficiary, such an inference could be drawn if there was no delivery of possession to the s