JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The dispute between the parties with regard to plots Nos. 68, 99-A and 642 has come to this Court for the third time. These plots were the exproprietary tenancy of Zahid Husain and Maqbul Husain. They migrated to Pakistan. The plots were declared an evacuee property on 23rd May, 1951. On 16th July, 1954 the Assistant Custodian allotted the plots to Trilok Chand, the present appellant, Azhar Hussain, respondent No. 1 was in possession of the plots. Trilok. Chand moved the Assistant Custodian for delivery of possession. The Assistant Custodian issued notice to respondent No. 1 under Section 8 (4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, requiring him to surrender possession. On 10th. October, 1955, respondent No. 1 made an application before the Assistant Custodian sating that he had become Bhumidhar of the plots because he was a recorded occupant thereof, and had deposited 20 times rent as required by clause 4 of the Vth Schedule of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. On 20th November, 1957 the Central Government issued a notification under the Displaced Persons Compensation and Re habitation Act, 1954 acquiring large areas of evacuee land in this State. The Assistant Custodian dismissed the application of Azhar Husain, respondent' No. I. on the finding that since the Iand had been acquired by the Central Government he had no jurisdiction to deal with it, Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition. Hon'ble Oak, J. (as he then was) held that since both the parties contend that the land in question had ceased to be an evacuee property, though on different grounds, the Assistant Custodian had rightly held that he had no jurisdiction to dispose of the application of the respondent. It was hence nor necessary to consider whether Azhar Husain, the respondent, was a Bhumidhar. On this view, the writ petition was dismissed on 6th August, 1962. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced in the village. Both sides filed objections claiming title. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 21-6-1962 dismissed both the objections. He held that the land was an, evacuee property and, therefore, in view of Section 48-A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide title disputes to such land. Both sides filed objections claiming title. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 21-6-1962 dismissed both the objections. He held that the land was an, evacuee property and, therefore, in view of Section 48-A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide title disputes to such land. Trilok Chand did not appeal against the dismissal of his objection. Azhar Husain filed an appeal. He challenged the finding that the land was evacuee property. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that Azhar Husain was not a recorded occupant. He did not become the Bhumidhar. The land continued to be an evacuee property. The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities was barred by Section 48 A. The appeal was dismissed on 28th July, 1962. This order was upheld in second appeal. 4. In revision the Joint Director held that the plots were acquired property and not evacuee property. The Central Government which had acquired the plots was a necessary party, but has not been impleaded as a party. The objection was not maintainable and was rightly rejected. 5. The respondent questioned this order in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Trilok Chand, the present appellant, was impleaded as a respondent, but the did not appear to contest the writ petition. 6. Hon'ble Yashoda Nandan, J., who heard the writ petition, held that it was essential for the joint Director to have decided as to whether respondent No. 1 had become Bhumidhar because it was on the decision of this question that the further question whether the Central Government had acquired the property or not depended. If the respondent had become a Bhumidhar in 1955 as claimed by him. The Central Government obviously could not have acquired the property in 1957. The learned Judge also held that it was wholly unnecessary for the respondent No. 1 to have impleaded the Central Government as a party. He reversed the finding of the subordinate consolidation authorities that Section 48-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act debarred the consolidation authorities in deciding title dispute with regard to evacuee property. It was held that sub-sec. (1) of Section 48-A only barred the consolidation authorities from calling in question and varying or reversing any decision of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The respondent No. 1 did not call in question any such decision of the Custodian. It was held that sub-sec. (1) of Section 48-A only barred the consolidation authorities from calling in question and varying or reversing any decision of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The respondent No. 1 did not call in question any such decision of the Custodian. The Assistant Custodian had dismissed the application of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the property had been acquired by the Central Government and consequently he had no jurisdiction to decide it. This decision did not amount to a decision of any title dispute in relation to the evacuee property. It was held that it was not clear as to when was he deposit of 20 times rent credited to he account of the Custodian. The Joint Director was asked to decide this question. The learned Judge noticed the finding of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that Azhar Husain was not a recorded occupant but he did not deal with it or set it aside. The order of the Joint Director was quashed and the matter was sent back to him for decision of the revision in accordance with law. 7. After remand, the Joint Director of Consolidation; on an enquiry, found that 20 times rent was deposited to the credit of Custodian's account on 21st December, 1957, that is, nearly a month after the Central Government's notification dated 20th November, 1957. It was held that on 20th November, 1957 the respondent could only be an Adhivasi, with the publication of the notification, his right, if any, came to an end. On this view the revision was dismissed. 8. Aggrieved, Azhar Husain, respondent, filed a writ petition for the third time in this Court. The learned judge, held that in view of its first exception, the notification dated 20th November, 1957 was inapplicable. The plots in dispute will not be deemed to have been acquired under it. It was held that Azhar Husain was recorded as an occupant and on dew sit of 20 times. rent within the prescribed period he became Bhumidhar and the land ceased to be evacuee property. On this finding the Deputy Director's order teas quashed. 9. Trilok Chand, the allottee, has come up in appeal. 10. Under the notification of 20th November, 1957 the Central Government "acquired evacuee properties mentioned in its schedule. rent within the prescribed period he became Bhumidhar and the land ceased to be evacuee property. On this finding the Deputy Director's order teas quashed. 9. Trilok Chand, the allottee, has come up in appeal. 10. Under the notification of 20th November, 1957 the Central Government "acquired evacuee properties mentioned in its schedule. The first exception to the notification provided that any property falling under any one or more of the following categories shall not be covered by this notification : (1) And property- (i) in respect of which proceedings are pending before any authority at the date of this notification under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act No. 31 of 1950) in which the question at issue is whether the property is or is not an evacuee property, or (ii) ............................" 11. After the plots in dispute had been allotted to the appellant he applied for delivery of possession. The Assistant Custodian issued notice to the respondent Azhar Husain under Section 8 (4) of the Evacuee Property Act requiring him to surrender possession. In response the respondent filed an application before the Assistant Custodian for a declaration that he was a recorded occupant. He had deposited 20 times rent and had become Bhumidhar of the plots. As such the plots in dispute have ceased to be an evacuee property. This application along with the proceedings under Section 8 (4) aforesaid were pending disposal before the Assistant Custodian on 20th November, 1957, the date on which the notification was issued. It may be remembered that the Assistant Custodian dismissed the respondent's application on 28th November, 1957 on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. Since these proceedings under the Evacuee Property Act were pending, the first exception was inapplicable and the plots in dispute cannot be deemed to have been acquired by the Central Government. 12. The principal question is whether the respondent became a Bhumidhar. Since the plots in dispute were evacuee property Schedule V of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was applicable. Paragraph. 12. The principal question is whether the respondent became a Bhumidhar. Since the plots in dispute were evacuee property Schedule V of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was applicable. Paragraph. 4 of this Schedule provides :- "4 (I) A person who has become an adhivasi under clause (b) of Section 20 of any land which is evacuee property, shall, before the 31st Day of December, 1957 or such further date as the State Government may from time to time by notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf pay the Custodian an amount equal to 20 times the rent computed at hereditary rates applicable to the land. (2) The amount paid under sub-para (1) shall be credited by the Custodian to the account of the evacuee concerned. (3) if the person liable to pay the amount under sub-para (1) - (a) pays the same within the period allowed therefore, he shall become a bhumidhar of the land liable to pay land revenue equal to one-half of the rent, comsputed at hereditary rates applicable to the land; or (b) fails to pay the same within the period allowed therefor, he shall forfeit all his rights, title and interests in the land of which he was an adhivasi and the provisions of Chapter II Of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall and be deemed always to have had -effect in respect of such land as if clause (b) of Section 20 had been never enacted. (4) Where a person becomes an adhivasi under clause (b) of Section 20 of a share only in any land reference to land in sub-paras (1) and (3) shall be construed as reference to such share only." Paragraph 6 of this Schedule states : "6.(1) If in respect of any evacuee land a question' arises as to whether any person in occupation thereof is or is not a sirdar under Secs. 16 and 19 or is or is not an adhivasi under Section 20, such question shall be decided by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and not by any other court or authority and the decision of the Custodian shall be conclusive subject to the provisions of appeals, review and revision contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. 16 and 19 or is or is not an adhivasi under Section 20, such question shall be decided by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and not by any other court or authority and the decision of the Custodian shall be conclusive subject to the provisions of appeals, review and revision contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. (2) Where in any suit or proceeding relating to land instituted after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956, in a Civil or Revenue Court or if instituted before the said commencement, a decree or order has not already been passed, the' question arises or is raised whether any party to the suit or proceeding is of on any material date was sirdar, adhivasi or asami of land and such question has not been previously determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the Custodian, the court shall stay the proceedings and direct the party claiming to be a sirdar, Adhivasi or asami to get the said right determined by the Custodian. (3) the decision of the Custodian shall be conclusive subject to the provision of appeals, review and revisions contained in the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The provisions of sub-secs. (2) and (4) of Section 332-B shall thereafter apply as if, for the word "Collector" the word "Custodian" had been substituted therein." The respondent claimed that he was recorded as an occupant within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He became Adhivasi under it The question whether a person is an adhivasi under Section 20 is to be decided by the Custodain and not by any other court or authority, vide paragraph of Schedule V. The Settlement Officer: (Consolidation) had in his appellate order dated 28th July, 1962. observed that Azhar Husain is recorded as qabiz in the remarks column. He has not been entered as an occupant in column 6 of the Khasra. The remarks column entry of qabiz does not amount that he was in occupation of the land in 1356. He also observed that it was precisely the finding of the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) as is apparent from the letter dated 26-12-1956 of Tehsildar addressed to the Assistant Custodian (judicial), Aligarh. The remarks column entry of qabiz does not amount that he was in occupation of the land in 1356. He also observed that it was precisely the finding of the Assistant Custodian (Judicial) as is apparent from the letter dated 26-12-1956 of Tehsildar addressed to the Assistant Custodian (judicial), Aligarh. The letter shows that the papers regarding the conferment of Bhumidhari rights upon the appellant were returned by the Assistant Custodian on the very ground that the appellant had not been recorded as an occupant in the records. From this it is apparent that the Assistant Custodian had decided that the respondent Azhar Husain was not recorded occupant within meaning of Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Under clause 6 of the Vth Schedule the order of the Assistant Custodian is conclusive subject to the provisions of appeals, review and revisions contained under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. There is no allegation that any such appeal, review or revision was, filed by the Respondent Azhar Husain against the order of she Assistant Custodian. The decision of the Assistant Custodian that the respondent was not a recorded occupant appears to have become final. Since it is conclusive under paragraph 6 of the Vth Schedule, the consolidation authorities could not go behind it. 13. In the writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is not open to this Court to overlook the finding of the Assistant Custodian. The learned Single Judge was in error in holding that the respondent Azhar Husain was a recorded occupant within meaning of the remarks column. The order of the Assistant Custodian holding that he was not a recorded occupant within meaning of Sec. 20 was not challenged in the writ petition and so his finding could not be set aside or overlooked. 14. Under paragraph 4 of the Vth Schedule a person can become a Bhumidhar provided he fulfils two conditions. Firstly, he must have become an Adhivasi under Section 20 (b) and in the next place he must have deposited 20 times rent before the 31st day of December, 1957 or by such further date as the State Government from time to time specify. Firstly, he must have become an Adhivasi under Section 20 (b) and in the next place he must have deposited 20 times rent before the 31st day of December, 1957 or by such further date as the State Government from time to time specify. In the present case the deposit was made to the credit of the Custodian on 21st December, 1957 within the prescribed time which was, till 31st May, 1958. But this deposit only fulfilled one of the two conditions. The other condeion precedent that the person must have become an Adhivasi under Section 20 (b) was not fulfilled. A person cannot become a Bhumidhar merely by depositing 20 times rent. It is, therefore, dear that the respondent Azhar Husain has failed to establish that he has become a Bhumidhar. 15. In this view, since the land continued to be evacuee property and since Azhar Husain has failed to establish any title to it, it ought to have been recorded in the name of the appellant as the allottee from the Custodian. 16. Mr. Bashir Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent, Submitted that the Judgment dated 6th August, 1962 of Hon'ble Oak, J. having become final would operate as res judicata. That judgment was rendered in a writ petition directed against an order dated 26th December, 1957 passed by the Assistant Custodian dismissing the application of Azhar Husain. In that application Azhar Husain had claimed that he had become a Bhumidhar and, the land had ceased to be evacuee property. The Assistant Custodian held that in view of the notification dated 20th November, 1957 the land stood acquired by the Central Government and in view of Section 15 of the Displaced persons (Rehabilitation and Compensation) Act he had res jurisdiction to decide the case. Mr. Justice Oak held that Section 15 of the aforesaid Act had no application to the present controversy. He also hold that for the purposes of the present case it was no necessary to give a definite finding as to whether the respondent was a Bhumidhar, as claimed by him. His Lordship observed that the important question for consideration was whether the Assistant Custodian was right in his view that he had no jurisdiction to decide the objections filed by Azhar Husain. His Lordship observed that the important question for consideration was whether the Assistant Custodian was right in his view that he had no jurisdiction to decide the objections filed by Azhar Husain. It was held that according to the Assistant Custodian as well as Trilok Chand, the land having been acquired by the Central Government was no longer an evacuee property. According to the case of Azhar, Husain also the land was not an evacuee property because he claimed to have become a Bhumidhar thereof. On his becoming a Bhumidhar the land ceased to be evacuee property. His Lordship held:- "Thus parties are agreed (alhough for different reasons) that the dispute is not in respect of any evacuee land." His Lordship referred to clause 6 of Schedule V of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and held that in order to bring the application under this clause in the first `place, the controversy must be in respect of evacuee land and secondly the matter in dispute must relate to Sirdari or Adhivasi rights. On the case of both the parties the land was not evacuee property and as such this paragraph was inapplicable and it could not be said that the Assistant Custodian had jurisdiction to decide the question of title. It was also held that the second condition was also not applicable because Azhar Husain was claiming as a Bhumidhar. He was not claiming either as a sirdar or as an Adhivasi. It was true that at one time his case was that he was an Adhivasi. But his present claim was for Bhumidhari rights. It was held that the view taken by the Assistant Custodian that he had no jurisdiction was correct. 17. It will be seen that Hon'ble Oak, J. decided the question of jurisdiction only. He specifically refrained from giving a finding on the question whether Azhar Husain had become a Bhumidhar as claimed by him. 18. It is settled that a decision on the question of jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata. In Ram Govinda Daw v. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 664 it was held that a suit dismissed by the trial Court `for default or for want of jurisdiction does not amount to resjudicaa. The matter was considered more elaborately in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai, A.I.R. S.C. 2355. In Ram Govinda Daw v. Smt. H. Bhakta Bala Dassi, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 664 it was held that a suit dismissed by the trial Court `for default or for want of jurisdiction does not amount to resjudicaa. The matter was considered more elaborately in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai, A.I.R. S.C. 2355. In that case the Supreme Court observed :- "It is true that in determining the application of the rule of res judicata the Court is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the earlier judgment. The matter in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in the earlier proceeding by,a competent court must in a subsequent litigation between the same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened. A mixed question of law and fact determined in the earlier proceeding between the same parties may not, for the same reason be questioned in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. But, where the decision is on a question of law, i.e., the interpretation of a statute, it will be res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the cause of action is he same; for the expression "the matter in issue" in Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, means the right litigated between the parties, i.e., the facts in which the right is claimed or denied and the law applicable to the determination of that issue." The Court then held :-- "Where, however, the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court some a decision of the Court sanctioning some thing which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of the order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land." In the present case the Assistant Custodian only held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application of Azhar Husain. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Oak, J. According to the decision in Mathura Prasad's case the decision on the question of jurisdiction of a court will not operate as res judicata. 19. Mr. Bashir Ahmad submitted that the appellant had filed an objection. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. This view was upheld by Hon'ble Oak, J. According to the decision in Mathura Prasad's case the decision on the question of jurisdiction of a court will not operate as res judicata. 19. Mr. Bashir Ahmad submitted that the appellant had filed an objection. His objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. He did not file any appeal, so the decision of the Consolidation Officer having become final will operate as res judicata, The Consolidation Officer held that since the land was evacuee property he had no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties because of Section 48-A (1) of the U. P, Consolidation of Holdings Act. In view of Mathura Prasad's decision the order of the Consolidation Officer will not operate as res judicata because it related only to the question of his jurisdiction. In the next place the decision of the Hon'ble Yashoda Nandan, holding that Section 48-A (1) does not bar the consolidation authorities from deciding title dispute between the parties' will operate as res judicata between the parties. Moreover, the objections of both the parties being objections to the same plots of land were treated by the Consolidation Officer as forming part of one proceeding. They were both dismissed by a single order. Azhar Husain challenged the order by way of an appeal. Since the order did not become final, it will not operate as res judicata even though Trilok Chand did not file an appeal of his own against it. 20. It was when urged that since the appellant did not appear to contest the previous petition, he was not entitled to raise the question of title in the present proceeding. By reasons of his absence the appellant could be precluded from challenging the finding and the decision given by Hon'ble Yashoda Nandan, J. but merely because he did not appear in the earlier writ petition, he cannot be estopped from appearing and contesting the proceedings in the present writ petition to which he has been made a party. The question whether the respondent became a Bhumidhar was not finally decided in the previous writ petition. The appellant can validly have his say on that question in he present proceedings. 21. To sum up, the position is that the land which was an evacuee property did not cease to be so by reason of the notification dated 20th November, 1957. The appellant can validly have his say on that question in he present proceedings. 21. To sum up, the position is that the land which was an evacuee property did not cease to be so by reason of the notification dated 20th November, 1957. The decision of the Assistant Custodian that the respondent was not a recorded occupant within meaning of Section 20 (b) Of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (as in the older of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 28th July, 1962, having become final is binding. In view of this decision Azhar Husain cannot be held to have become a Bhumidhar. It is not disputed that the appellant was the allottee of the land from the Custodian. There is no allegation or a finding that the allot men order had been cancelled. Consequently, the consolidation authorities ought to have recorded the appellant as the allottee from the Custodian over he plots in dispute. 22. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21s November, 1969 is quashed. The Consolidation authorities are directed to record the appellant as the allottee of the land from the Custodian in respect of he plots in dispute. We, however make no order as to costs.