JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division recommending that revision filed by Jamuna Prasad against the order dated March 28, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar Gonda in a case under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The lekhpal/Secretary, L.M.C., reported that the revisionist Jamuna Prasad had encroached upon the Gaon Sabha plots Nos. 230, 246 , 267 and 322 from 1376F. Notice in Z.A. form 49-A was accordingly issued to him. The revisionist had filed an objection to the effect that he was in cultivatory possession or plot Nos. 230, 246 and 267 for the last 25 years and the Gaon Sabha had no right over the same. After considering the evidence of both sides the trial court had ordered ejectment of the revisionist from all the 4 plots in dispute and had also directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 668/- to Gaon Sabha at 50 times of the reat at hereditary rates. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that bona fide question of title was involved in this case and the Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act did not act as bar. I cannot accept either of these contentions. It has been established beyond doubt that there had been consolidation operations in the village and that during consolidation the plots in question were recorded as Gaon Sabha land. It is the established law that the declaration of title during the consolidation proceedings is final and if there is any trespass continuing from before, this trespass would be deemed to be over when the consolidation proceedings have become final. If any person wants of claim any title on the basis of adverse possession will be counted to have started afresh after consolidation. The leanred Addl. Commissioner has rightly stated that as during the consolidation the land in dispute was recorded as Gaon Sabha land the revisionist cannot now claim any title. His status would, therefore, be of a trespasser and his trespass would be deemed to have started afresh after consolidation. No bona filed question is thus involved. 5. The leanred Addl. Commissioner has rightly stated that as during the consolidation the land in dispute was recorded as Gaon Sabha land the revisionist cannot now claim any title. His status would, therefore, be of a trespasser and his trespass would be deemed to have started afresh after consolidation. No bona filed question is thus involved. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the revisionist had no connection with plot No. 322 and no damages should be levied against this plot. However, the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before the trial court was sufficient to establish that the revisionist had trespassed over all the 4 plots including plot No. 322. The revisionist failed to produce any evidence to the effect that he has not trespassed over plot No. 322. In the circumstances the trial court has rightly held that the revisionist has trespassed over all the 4 plots and had levied damages accordingly. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the entries in the Khasra prior to 1376F should have also bee considered and the courts below have erred in not doing so. The correct position is that the trial court had considered all the Khasra entries from 1359 to 1376F. However, as stated above all these Khasra entries prior to consolidation operations will be deemed to have been washed away with the consolidation operations. The trial court rightly held that as the revisionist's name did not find place on any of the plots in question in any capacity he was barred under Section 49 of the C.H. Act to agitate the question of title. 7. I see no force in this revision and hereby dismiss it.