JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This is a revision petition filed by Ram Suchit against the order dated October 6, 1966 passed by Addl. Commissioner, Allahabad in appeal No. 773/402 of 1966 under Section 198 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard learned counsels of both the parties. 3. The following brief facts are given.-Ram Suchit filed an application against Bhagel and others for cancelling the lease given to Bhagel and others the Opposite Parties in respect of plots Nos. 603/1 measuring 2.2 Bighas and plot No. 603/2 measuring 1 Bighas situated in village Kanauji Khurd, Pargana Jhusi, Distt. Allahabad. This application was filed on September 28, 1964. 4. It appears that consolidation operations started in the village in question on April 30, 1966. 5. The learned Assistant Collector by his order dated June 9, 1965 dismissed the application of Ram Suchit. He did not cancel the lease give in favour of the Opposite Parties, i.e. Bhagel and others. An appeal was filed against this order by the applicant, but the learned Addl. Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land management committee had leased out the land according to rules ad the order of the learned Asstt. Collector was correct. 6. A revision against the above order was filed in the Board. It was argued before the Board that the proceedings should abate because consolidation operations were going on in this village a question. So the entire proceedings were abated on March 16, 1972. It was recalled on September 27, 1974 on the ground that the village in question had been de-notified. 7. It has come up for hearing before me today. 8. The village in question was under consolidation operations from April 30, 1966. The parties that is Ram Suchit application and Bhage and others Opposite Parties had agitated their claims before the consolidation courts. Two orders of the consolidation courts have been field which show that Ram Suchit applicant was in possession of the land in dispute and the lease granted to the Opposite Parties was not proper. These orders are from the Asstt. Consolidation Officer and Dy. Director of Consolidation and they are dated July 11, 1969 and September 28, 1970. there is a peculiar situation in this case. These orders are from the Asstt. Consolidation Officer and Dy. Director of Consolidation and they are dated July 11, 1969 and September 28, 1970. there is a peculiar situation in this case. One set of courts i.e. the consolidation courts have held Ram Suchit applicant to be Sirdar of the land in suit ; they have disregarded the lease granted to the Opposite Parties. And another set of courts i.e. the Asstt. Collector and the Addl. Commissioner have held that the lease granted to the Opposite Parties was regular and they were Sirdar's of the land in dispute. It has been urged on behalf of the applicant revisionist that the revenue courts are bound by the orders passed by the consolidation courts. There is plenty of substance in this argument. It was because of this that a provision was made under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by which the civil and revenue court were debarred from entertaining any suit or proceedings with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding should or ought to have been taken under the Consolidation of Holding Act. This provision has been made to avoid any clash of discordant orders between the two costs of courts. In the instant case one set of courts (Consolidation) has held Ram Suchit applicant to be the Sirdar of the land in dispute while the other set of courts (Revenue) has held him to be not Sirdar of the land in suit, they have held the Opposite Parties to be the Sirdar's. In my opinion in matters like this it would be damaging to reopen the issues which have been decided and adjudicated upon by the Consolidation courts. I am supported in his by 1975 R.D. 223 wherein it has been laid down that the consolidation proceedings are final in respect of rights and the title of the parties and no courts competent to reopen the question. In the present revision Since the applicant-revisionist has been held to be Sirdar of the land in dispute by the consolidation courts. I think it would not be proper to question that finding and to re-open that issue. 9. It has been stated by the learned counsel for Opposite Parties that a writ petition had been filed before the Hon'ble High court against the order passed by the Dy. I think it would not be proper to question that finding and to re-open that issue. 9. It has been stated by the learned counsel for Opposite Parties that a writ petition had been filed before the Hon'ble High court against the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. This has got no bearing in the decision of the present revision. The orders passed in the writ petition will govern the orders passed by the consolidation courts. As far as the revenue courts are concerned I am of the view that they should not have re-opened the question whether he applicant-revisionist Ram Suchit was Sirdar or not once the consolidation courts had held him to be the Sirdar. 10. In view of the above, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner is set aside. The result will be that the orders of the consolidation courts will stand regarding the rights of the revisionist.