JUDGMENT B.N. Nigam, J. - Swami Vishwaksenacharya has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgments dated September 28, 1963, September 16, 1964 and May 18, 1965, copies being annexures 2, 3 and 5 respectively. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner states that on December 18, 1962 he instituted a regular suit under Sections 209 and 219 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the court of the Judicial Officer, Lucknow. A preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction was framed. On August 28, 1963 the Judicial Officer held that the suit was not maintainable. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Commissioner, Lucknow Division dismissed the appeal on September 18, 1965. The petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. This was also dismissed on May 18, 1965. The only contention before me is as regards the view that the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act barred a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned counsel urges that this view is not correct inasmuch as no relief as regards delivery of possession or ejectment of a trespasser could be granted by any consolidation courts. The consolidation courts could only grant a declaration of title. In the present case the learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the only issue that has at present been framed and is being decided is issue No. 1 which reads : 4. Is the suit of the plaintiff maintainable in view of Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act? Whether the plaintiff can succeed finally in the suit or not is another matter and that question does not fall for my consideration. The only question is whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. On that point on the authority of the decision of a Division Bench Garela Dhwaj v. Bhadeshwar and others, 1966 RD 117 , it must be held that the decisions of the revenue courts were wrong. In this decision it has been held : "There is no provision in the Consolidation of Holdings Act under which a suit or application for recovery of possession can be filed. In this decision it has been held : "There is no provision in the Consolidation of Holdings Act under which a suit or application for recovery of possession can be filed. The only provision under which possession can be delivered is Section 28, under which possession is to be delivered to a tenure-holder over the land given in his chak after the consolidation ............. In other words, a person cannot recover possession by any application to a consolidation authority prior to the confirmation of the statement of proposals.......... As it cannot be said that the appellant could file a suit or application under the Consolidation of. Holdings Act for recovery of possession from the respondent before he applied under Section 9 the bar imposed by Section 48 did not apply." Similarly, a single Judge of this Court in Ahsan Ali v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1965 RD 346 relied on the decision in Chinnoo and others, CM Writ Petition No. 2268 of 1957 decided on May 4, 1959 which held; "A suit for possession by Noor Mohammad on the ground that he was a sirdar and the petitioners were in possession without any rights could not be filed under the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act." In view of the decision of the Division Bench the learned single Judge held that the petitioner, had in spite of the consolidation proceedings, a right to institute a suit under Section 209. 5. I am, therefore, of opinion that the view of the revenue courts is incorrect. Issue No. 1 has been wrongly decided. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the suit be restored to its original number in the court of the Assistant Collector First Class, Lucknow and decided in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The petitioner will get his costs against opposite parties 5 to 8.