JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This writ petition is directed against certain orders passed by revenue Courts under the UP Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act 1949 (UP Act X of 1949.) 2. Ram Lal is the Petitioner. Dori Lal and Thakur Das are the principal opposite parties. According to the Petitioner's affidavit, there were consolidation proceedings in their village Rashidpur. Chaks were allotted to parties in the consolidation proceedings, which came to an end. The village was denotified. Subsequently, Dori Lal and Thakur Das, who are opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, filed an application u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949 for cancellation of a declaration previously granted in favour of the Petitioner. That application by Dori Lal and Thakur Das was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Sadabad on 31-12-58. He directed that the Sanad in Ram Lal's favour should be cancelled. The Court also gave directions for correction of village records accordingly. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the decision of the Asstt. Collector, dated Dec. 31, 1938. The appeal was partly allowed by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra on March 19, 1960. He decided that it was not necessary to cancel the declaration of bhumidhari rights in Ram Lal's favour altogether. It was held that Ram Lal was entitled to a declaration of Bhumi dhari rights with respect to one-third share in the holding. The appeal was decided in those terms. The present writ petition by Ram Lal is directed against those two orders dated Dec. 31, 1958 and March 19, 1960. 3. The main contention of Mr. Swami Dayal appearing for the Petitioner is that, the application by Dori Lal & Thakur Das u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949 was not maintainable. Mr. Swami Dayal relied upon S. 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953. S. 49 of that Act runs thus;- No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in any civil or revenue Court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application can be filed under the provisions of this Act. 4. It is difficult to see how the application u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949 can be said to be a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. 4. It is difficult to see how the application u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949 can be said to be a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. It is the Petitioner's case that consolidation proceedings in this village were over long ago. Dori Lal and Thakur Das did not attempt to reopen consolidation proceedings. All that they urged before the Assistant Collector was that, a certain Sanad was wrongly issued to Ram Lal. This was not a matter arising out of consolidation proceedings. Nor is this a matter, in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The 1953 Act contains no provision cancellation of a Sanad for Bhumidhari for rights. So the present case is not barred by either of the two parts of S. 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 5. In the alternative, Mr. Swami Dayal contended that the proceeding under Act No. X of 1949 is barred by the principle of res judicata. Reliance was placed on Ss. 12, 21, 22 and 23 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act). S. 12 of the 1953 Act provides for objections to statements prepared under S. 11. Sub S. (4) of S. 12 states: Where the objection filed under sub S. (1) involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent Court, the Consolidation Officer shall refer the question for determination to the Civil Judge having jurisdiction who shall thereupon refer it to the arbitrator. Assuming that Dori Lal and Thakur Das did not file any objection under sub S. (1) of S. 12 of the 1953 Act, there should have been no occasion for reference to the Civil Judge as arbitrator. Sub S. (7) of S. 12 of the 1953 Act states: A question of title in respect of any plot mentioned in the statement in Cl. (c) of sub S. (1) of S. 11, which might and ought to have been raised under sub S. (1) but had not been raised, shall not be raised in any objection filed under sub S. (2) of S. 20, or under sub S. (1) of S. 34. It is true that S. 12(7) does lay down the principle of res judicata. It is true that S. 12(7) does lay down the principle of res judicata. But it is made clear in S. 12(7) that the principle of res judicata operates in a limited sense. The operation of the principle of res judicata is confined to proceedings under Sections 20 and 34 of the 1953 Act. 6. Chapter III of the 1953 Act provides for preparation of consolidation scheme. The word 'final' has been mentioned at different places in Sections 21, 22 and 23, which appear in Chapter III of the 1953 Act. The meaning of the word 'final' in this context appears to be final for purposes of preparation of consolidation scheme. 7. On examining the entire scheme of the 1953 Act, it does not appear that that Act provides for final decisions of question of title. The preamble of the Act is- to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture. It is true that there are certain provisions in the Act about decisions on questions of title. But those decisions on questions of title are given for the ultimate purpose of consolidation of agricultural holdings. I should not, therefore, be taken that, decisions under Act No. v. of 1954 are ultimate decisions on questions of title binding on civil and revenue Courts in all future cases. The decisions in the consolidation proceedings between the parties did not operate as res judicata for purposes of the application u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949. 8. Mr. Swami Dayal also suggested that the proceeding under Act No. X of 1949 was barred by estoppel. It is not suggested that Dori Lal and Thakur Dass expressly declared in the former proceeding that Ram Lal was owner of one half share in the holdings. In the absence of any such declaration, there was no estoppel against Dori Lal and Thakur Das in their application u/s 12 of Act No. X of 1949. 9. Mr. Swami Dayal pointed out that in the order dated 11-12-1958 the Assistant Collector directed that entries should be made in village papers in accordance with his direction for cancelling Ram Lal's Sanad. That was an incidental order for correction of papers. Section 12 of Act No. X of 1949 dose not expressly provide for correction of papers. 9. Mr. Swami Dayal pointed out that in the order dated 11-12-1958 the Assistant Collector directed that entries should be made in village papers in accordance with his direction for cancelling Ram Lal's Sanad. That was an incidental order for correction of papers. Section 12 of Act No. X of 1949 dose not expressly provide for correction of papers. But this Court does not ordinarily interfere with directions of revenue Courts for correction of papers. 10. It has been pointed out on behalf of the Petitioner that, a partition suit between the parties has been pending for many years. Annexure 6 to the rejoinder affidavit is a copy of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24- 1-61 passed in second Appeal in the partition suit. In that order dated 24-1-61 the Board of Revenue directed that the appeal in the partition suit should be decided in terms of consolidation Form No. 25. That direction appears to be in conflict with the decision of the Additional Commissioner in the proceeding; under Act No. X of 1949. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 24-1-6l was, however, passed long after the passing of the two impugned orders. I express no opinion as to whether the two impugned orders stand modified by virtue of the decision of the Board of Revenue given in the partition suit in January, 1961. It is sufficient to note that the Petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in the two impugned orders. So those two orders must stand for what they are worth. 11. The petition is dismissed with costs to opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. The stay order dated 5-4-1960 is vacated.