The principle of res judicata and the requirement to challenge the initial order before filing a subsequent appeal were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The brief facts of the case are that the proceedings under Section 21 (1), of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), which was registered by way of Case No.357, was decided by the court of the Consolidation Officer, vide its judgment and order dated 06.05.1994.

2. In the present writ petition, the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner is to the effect that; on a challenge being given to the said order of 06.05.1994, the same has been confirmed with the dismissal of the appeal under Section 21 (2) of the Act, vide its judgment and order dated 20.02.2009, and later on the said appellate court's judgment too, was confirmed by the Revisional Court in Revision No.62/2012-13, "Joyti Prasad Vs. Kishan Singh and others". Apart from the fact that, if the, "Talika" appended to the order of the Consolidation Officer, so far it relates to the petitioner, who is "Khatedar No.88" is taken into consideration, the allotment of "Chaks" made therein falls to be within the ambit of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Act.

3. Apart from it, if the Appellate Court's judgment itself is taken into consideration, and particularly, that the findings which has been recorded on internal page no.2 of the judgment dated 20.02.2009, the following findings have been recorded, which reads as under:-

4. As per the findings which has been recorded therein, the court of learned Settlement Officer, Consolidation, has observed that as against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 06.05.1994, the appellant had already preferred an appeal on 29.11.1999 and that appeal was dismissed by the judgment of 19.03.2002 (not on record).

5. The dismissal of the subsequent appeal by the judgment dated 20.02.2009, is a question for consideration, before this Court and during the course of the proceedings, this Court has called upon the petitioner to place the document on record. Accordingly, in compliance thereto, the petitioner has filed the supplementary affidavit placing on record certain additional documents in order to assist the Court in deciding the present writ petition. The documents appended there with, and particularly, Annexure no.3 to the supplementary affidavit, if it is taken into consideration, it refers to an Appeal No.394/2000-2001 and if the cause title of the appeal is taken into consideration, which is shown to be as against the order dated 06.05.1994, which was rendered in Case No.357.

6. What is important to mention herein is that, if the date of its institution of the said appeal is also taken into consideration, that happens to be of 29.11.1999, which in fact finds reference in the Appellate Court's judgment too on Page No.32, as referred above, which refers the date of the institution of the appeal. Meaning thereby, as against the impugned order of Consolidation Officer dated 06.05.1994, the petitioner has already earlier preferred an appeal under Section 21 (2) of the Act, which was numbered as Appeal No.394/2000-2001, by filing the same on 29.11.1999 and as per the findings which has been recorded in the impugned Appellate Court's judgment, the said appeal was dismissed on 19.03.2002 (not on record). As far as the dismissal of appeal on 19.03.2002 is concerned, that will attach finality, qua the petitioner so far his grievance against Consolidation Officer's judgment dated 06.05.1994 is concerned, in view of the fact that it was his appeal, which was dismissed by the said order dated 19.03.2002 and the counsel for the petitioner, based on the documents which was placed on record, is not in a position to make any statement, as to what consequence the judgment dated 19.03.2002, dismissing his 1st appeal being Appeal No.394/2000-01, has attained too. Hence, any subsequent challenge given, by the petitioner, to the order dated 06.05.1994 of the Consolidation Officer, by preferring the 2nd Appeal, being Appeal No.346, yet again invoking the ap