JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— The respondents Nos, 3 and 4 filed an objection u/ S. 9-A of the U.P, Consolidation of Holdings Act, contending that the names of the appellants were wrongly recorded in place of their names as sirdars with respect to the land in question. In view of the subsequent amendment in the law the respondents claimed the rights of Bhumidhars. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection and the respondents filed an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation agreed with the respondents and allowed the objection. The appellants after unsuccessfully moving the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. An appeal under Chapter VIII, R. 5 of the High Court Rules was also dismissed by a Division Bench by the judgment which is the subject matter of the present civil appeal by special leave.

2. According to the case of the respondents they were the tenants and the appellants were sub-tenants under them when the Zamindari was abolished in Uttar Pradesh. As the respondent No. 3, Ram Narain, was a paralytic patient and respondent No. 4, Sheo Narain, a minor, whose father was suffering from a disqualification within the meaning of clause (d) of S. 157(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), they were covered by S. 157 and consequently the provisions of S. 21(1)(h) were attracted. On that basis it is claimed that the appellants who were their sub-tenants acquired the status of asamis and not that of adhivasis.

3. The appellants denied the allegations and prayed for dismissal of the objection. The question as to whether the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled to the benefit arising out of the provisions of S. 21(1)(h)read with S. 157 was decided against the appellants and the High Court rightly refused to re-examine the controversy which was set at rest by findings of fact. An attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants before us to re-open the issue but we declined to go into that question which is dependent on evidence. The appellants have further contended that in view of the final publication of the compensation statement made u/ S. 240-J in Chapter IX-A of the Act, the claim of the respondents must be held to be concluded against them, and their objection was not maintainable.

4. A reference has been made by the learned counsel for the parties to the two Full Bench decisions of the Allahabad Court in Maqbool Raza Ghaggar Hussain v. Joint Director of Consolidation AIR 1969 Allahabad 26, and Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarama Ahir : AIR 1975 Allahabad 324. In Maqbool Razas case the Full Bench of three Judges held that by enacting Chapter IX-A it was never the intention of the legislature to provide for a machinery to decide the question as to who is the adhivasi of a particular land. This decision was confirmed later by the Full Bench of five Judges Avdhesh Singhs case. Mr. V. K. S. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the categorical answer given by the Full Bench in Avdhesh Singhs case to the questions 1, 2 and 4, the objection of the respondent is liable to be rejected without going into any controversy on facts and in. spite of findings recorded in their favour with respect to the disabilities claimed. As it appears from the last paragraph of the judgment, the Full Bench held that the finality of compensation Statement u/ S. 240-J extinguishes the rights and title of the landholder and the landholder is debarred from showing in collateral or separate proceedings that the land is not held by an adhivasi except in cases where the provisions of the Act have not been followed or where the compensation statement has been prepared in disregard of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The Court also said that the compensation statement is final between the landholder and the State alone and that a landhold