ORDER

R.L. Gulatt, J. - This writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of certain consolidation proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.

2. During the consolidation operations opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 who are the sons of one Sheo Dayal put in a claim that their names should also be recorded along with the names of the Petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. Their claim was based upon the allegation that they were the daughter's son of one Raghubar who was admittedly the co-tenure holder of the land along with the father of the Petitioner. The claim was not accepted by the Consolidation Officer, but on appeal the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accepted the claim of opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13. The Petitioner had resisted the claim on two grounds, (1) that the opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were not the daughter's son of Raghubar, and (2) that the Petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession.

3. So far as the question of adverse possession is concerned, the same was decided against the Petitioner and that matter is no longer in contest. So far as the question as to whether opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were the sons of the daughter of Raghubar as claimed by them or not, it was examined in detail by the Settlement Officer and thereafter by the Dy. Director of Consolidation before whom a second appeal was filed. Both these authorities recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were in fact the daughter's sons of Raghubar as claimed by them. The Petitioner then went in revision before the Director of Consolidation. The Joint Director of Consolidation, who heard the revision, rejected the same by his order dated 18-3-1963. The Petitioner has now come up before this Court against the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation as also against the orders of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the. Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

4. It appears that there was a previous litigation between the parties in respect of certain other plots of land. The Judicial Officer, Etawah, who tried the suit recorded a finding that opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were the sons of the daughter of Raghubar, but he dismissed their suit as he found these persons to be out of possession. A certified copy of this judgment was filed before the Consolidation authorities as a piece of evidence. Oral evidence was also led by the parties in support of their rival contentions. The Additional Settlement Officer repelled the contention that the previous suit between the parties operated as res judicata. He, however, took into consideration the finding recorded by the Judicial Officer to the effect that the opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were the sons of the daughter of Raghubar. He also considered the other evidence on record and came to the conclusion that no reliable evidence had been adduced to rebut the finding of the Judicial Officer.

5. It appears that before the Dy. Director of Consolidation the Petitioner merely reiterated his plea of res judicata which was rejected by him on the ground that the land involved in the previous litigation was different than the land involved in the dispute before him. He went on to observe that the decision in the previous litigation about the parentage of Respondent Nos. 10 to 13 was a good piece of evidence which the Petitioner had not been able to rebut. The Joint Director of Consolidation merely confirmed the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has advanced before me an entirely new argument. His submission is that by reason of Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, the judgment of the Judicial Officer in the previous litigation could not be taken notice of. No such contention was raised before the consolidation authorities, nor has any such contention been raised in the grounds of the writ petition. In fact, this contention is contrary to ground No. 2 of the writ petition which