ORDER M.H. Beg, J. - The Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari after calling for the records of second appeal No. 99 (z) of 1960-61 in the case of Vijai Shankar Rai v. Vishwa Nath Rai, from the Board of Revenue, to quash the orders of the Board of Revenue dt. 31-5-1961 dismissing his second appeal from the decision of an Additional Commissioner, as well as the order of the Board of Revenue dated 28-12-1962, rejecting a review application filed by the Petitioner. He also prayed for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 6-2-1961 confirming the decree of the Judicial Officer, Ghazipur, dated 30-11-1960, by which the suit of the Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 Vishwa Nath Rai was decreed. 2. The Plaintiff's suit was for a declaration of his rights as bhumidhar and in the alternative, for possession against the Defendant Petitioner. After a very detailed consideration of every piece of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Vishwa Nath Rai, the Plaintiff opposite party, was the adopted son of Udai Bhan Rai who had also executed a registered deed of adoption in his favour on 11-2-1944. The Petitioner too claimed to be the adopted son of Udai Bhan Rai and had produced an unregistered deed of adoption dated 8-2-1944 together with an admission of Udai Bhan Rai in his favour. But after weighing the evidence of both sides, the Petitioner's claim was rejected and the Plaintiff opposite party's claim was accepted by the trial court. The Additional Commissioner had confirmed these findings. One of the grounds of decision was that a Munsif's judgment dated 16-2-1959 inter partes determined the validity of the adoption of Vishva Nath Rai and the invalidity of the adoption of Vijai Shankar Rai Petitioner. The Board of Revenue had rejected the Second appeal summarily and held that a pure question of fact was involved. 3. Udai Bhan Rai, who had evidently become displeased with the Petitioner after having adopted him, being alive until 1954, the Petitioner's possession over the land in dispute until 1954 could no) give any cause of action to Vishva Nath Rai. The suit of Vishwa Nath Rai was Held to be within time. The question of Limitation, which was raised, was also correctly decided. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. G.K. Sahai, made a submission at the outset. The suit of Vishwa Nath Rai was Held to be within time. The question of Limitation, which was raised, was also correctly decided. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. G.K. Sahai, made a submission at the outset. It was that, in view of the provisions of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Jot Chakbandi (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1966 (Act XXI of 1966), the writ petition-itself should be declared to have abated. It was pointed out that the land in dispute lay within an area in respect of which proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act had begun. Section 2 of the UP Act 21 of 1966 amends Section 4(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act by adding as follows: (a) Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area, or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any Court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated. All that this provision does is to cause proceedings for correction of records and suits and other proceedings in respect of declaration of rights and other interests in land, for which proceedings could be taken under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, to abate. This was a logical corollary of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. It has nothing to do with the constitutional powers of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. The UP Legislature is obviously incompetent to affect the powers of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution by any of its enactments. The powers of this Court can only be affected by a constitutional amendment of Article 226 for which a special procedure is prescribed by the Constitution. The argument is, therefore, not sound. 5. It was next contended that the orders of the Revenue courts suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record. It was urged that a suit u/s 229-B could not be converted into a suit u/s 209 of the ZA and LR. Act. The argument is, therefore, not sound. 5. It was next contended that the orders of the Revenue courts suffer from errors apparent on the face of the record. It was urged that a suit u/s 229-B could not be converted into a suit u/s 209 of the ZA and LR. Act. The contention was that the suit filed by Vishva Nath Rai in the Revenue Court was, in law and in fact, a suit u/s 229-B only so that no relief which could be given in a suit u/s 209 of the ZA and LR Act could be given here. The suit was, as held by the Revenue courts, a suit for declaration u/s 229-B coupled with a prayer for possession in the alternative. No provision was shown to me for barring such a composite suit in a Revenue Court. The contention based on the language of Section 229-B of the ZA and LR Act was that it does not provide for a suit for possession. This is not enough. It is well settled law that a suit can lie for reliefs in the alternative which could be given under different sections of an enactment. There is, therefore, no force in this objection either. 6. The other matters raised relate only to the weight of evidence. The mere fact that the trial court had, after noticing the admission of Udai Bhan Rai, given a greater weight to other and stronger pieces of evidence, or^ that the Additional Commissioner had referred to a judgment in proceedings u/s 145 and the judgment of the Munsif, to support the findings given by him, could not vitiate their decisions. Indeed, the previous judgment of the Munsif had a conclusive effect, on the general principles of res-judicata, even though it may not be strictly covered by Section 11, CPC The judgment in proceedings u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure could be used as an instance of assertion of rights which is admissible u/s 13 of the Evidence Act. Even if the Additional Commissioner had attached undue weight to individual items of evidence, this could not be a ground for interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution. No error apparent on the face of the record was disclosed. 7. I, therefore, dismiss this petition with costs.