JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order dated December 8, 1969 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division reversing the decree dated July 23, 1969 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Barabanki in a case under Sections 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondent No. 1 Ram Charan along with his brother Rameshwar filed a suit claiming declaration of their Bhumidhari rights in plot No. 125 and seeking ejectment of defendant-appellant Ram Dulare as a trespasser. During the pendency of the suit Rameshwar died leaving behind Ram Charan as the sole heir. The trial court dismissed the holding that the defendant-appellant was the Sirdar of the land in suit and the plaintiff had got no rights. The lower appellate court has, however, set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. Ram Dulare has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land in suit was admittedly a grove and two points were involved in the case, namely the title of the plaintiff and the question of limitation. According to the learned counsel, the learned Additional Commissioner has not decided the question of limitation and has yet decreed the suit. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the consolidation proceedings in the village started in the year 1958 and even if the possession of the appellant was from that year, even then the right of the plaintiff-respondent extinguished as the suit was filed in the year 1968. Both these contentions may be considered together. 5. Both the parties have admitted that the plot in suit is a grove. This point is, therefore, not in dispute. This plaintiff-respondent had claimed that he had inherited the grove form his father Sarabjeet alias Jeet and that his claim had been upheld by the Deputy Director Consolidation, Barabanki in a case decided on October 4, 1963 which operated as res judicate. The writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation has also been dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). The writ petition filed against the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation has also been dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). In the C.H. Form 23 the plaintiff-respondent's name was recorded as a Bhumidhar but somehow by fraud and forgery the name of the defendant-appellant had been erroneously recorded in the Jild Bandobast Chakbandi. About this entry the plaintiff-respondent came to know for the first time in March 1968. The defendant-appellant had, on the other hand, claimed that he had won in the Court of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and his name had been recorded in the consolidation records. He also claimed to have acquired the tenancy rights in the land under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had indeed decided in favour of the defendant-appellant, but the Deputy Director, Consolidation by his order dated October 4, 1963 set aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and ordered that the plaintiff respondent alongwith his brother Rameshwar be recorded as Bhumidhar of the land in suit. The defendant appellant had filed a writ petition against the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation. This was dismissed by the High Court on October 27, 1966. In view of this the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant that the appellant has been in possession from the year 1958 or that the question of limitation has not been considered by the learned Additional Commissioner has no force at all. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the land was grove land, the question of title had to be decided in the present suit and there was no question of res judicata involved in the case. According to the learned counsel, the view of law taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous. On this point, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Parahu v. Board of Revenue, 1968 R.D. 195 in which a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court has observed as follows: "Where a certain plot had been excluded from consolidation operations because it was a grove, the title in respect of it could be adjudicated upon by the regular Court." 8. The learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, referred to Ram Niranjan v. Bhawani Prasad, 1974 R.D. 25 in which the question has been considered at great length by another learned Judge of the same High Court who has observed as follows: 'The learned counsel referred to the definition of the term 'Consolidation' as given in sub clause (2) of Section 3 of the Act. According to this definition 'Consolidation' means re-arrangement of holding in a suit amongst several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. An Explanation is added to sub-clause (2), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:- "For the purposes of this clause, holding shall not include the following:- (i) Land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued." In view of this provision it was submitted that for the purposes of 'Consolidation' land which was grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued shall not be considered as holding and as such it would not fall within the purview of 'Consolidation'. It was argued that the purpose of 'Consolidation' is to re-arrange the holding in a unit amongst several tenure holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact and as the grove could not be shifted it was excluded from the 'holding' for the purposes of consolidation and the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act would, therefore, not include within its ambit the land recorded as a grove. There is no force in this contention. The import and effect of the explanatory clause added to sub-clause (2) of Section 3 is to be determined keeping in view the scheme of the said Act. By a declaration and notification made under Section 4 of the Act a district or part thereof is brought under consolidation operations. Section 7 deals with the examination of revenue records. Section 8 deals with the revision of the field book and current annual register as well as determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings. Under Section 8-A the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit are prepared. Section 7 deals with the examination of revenue records. Section 8 deals with the revision of the field book and current annual register as well as determination of valuations and shares in joint holdings. Under Section 8-A the principles to be followed in carrying out the consolidation operations in the unit are prepared. Under Section 9(2) objections disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in the records or in the extracts therefrom or in the statement of principles or the need for partition can be raised. Such objections are disposed of under Section 9-A or 9-B or 9-C as the case may be. Section 11 provides for appeal from certain orders. Section 11-A provides, inter alia, that no question in respect of joint holdings, valuation of plots which might or ought to have been raised shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of consolidation operations. Provisional consolidation scheme is prepared under Section 19-A and is published under Section 20 and is confirmed under Section 23 of the Act. There is no indication in Ch. II of the Act that the consolidation authorities have to ignore grovers at the time of revision and correction of maps and revenue records. The annual register must cover the entire area mentioned in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Groves would, therefore, appear in the annual registers and if a party finds that a grove has been wrongly entered in the name of another person can file objections. Objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holding may be raised and disposed of under the provisions of the Act. It is thus plain that grove was excluded from 'holding' only in connection with re-arrangement of the plots, i.e. in allotment of Chaks. For all other purposes 'Grove' is included within the purview of the said Act.' 9. I find myself in agreement with the above view and hold that the Deputy Director Consolidation was quite competent to adjudicate title of grove land. The point that the Consolidation Court had no jurisdiction was never even raised in the writ petition filed before the High Court which was dismissed. I find myself in agreement with the above view and hold that the Deputy Director Consolidation was quite competent to adjudicate title of grove land. The point that the Consolidation Court had no jurisdiction was never even raised in the writ petition filed before the High Court which was dismissed. Thus, the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the Consolidation Courts had the jurisdiction to decide the question of title of grove land and once the question had been decided, Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act barred the further jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts to further decide the title of the same land. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the case Ram Chandra v. Bhagwan Sahai, 1976 R.D. 172, in which it has been held that under Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act 12 of 1965, the entries in the map, the field book and the records of rights prepared under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive and the accuracy and the correctness of the map prepared during the consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged'. In this very judgment it has been pointed out that sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been amended in 1965 as follows: "(2) All entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved." Before the amendment the sub-section (2) read as follows: "The entries in the map, the field book and the records of rights prepared under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive." Thus, the amendment has now taken away the finality and conclusiveness of the entries made in the consolidation records and it is now open to a party to say that the entries have not been correctly made. If the entries in the consolidation records have been by fraud or error made against the specific orders of the Deputy Director Consolidation or of the High Court, the judgment of the High Court and the Deputy Director. Consolidation would prevail as against the entries. If the entries in the consolidation records have been by fraud or error made against the specific orders of the Deputy Director Consolidation or of the High Court, the judgment of the High Court and the Deputy Director. Consolidation would prevail as against the entries. In the present case, it would appear that certain entries have been made in the consolidation records in accordance with the judgment of the High Court and the Deputy Director Consolidation, but certain other entries were made in favour of the defendant-appellant on the basis of the earlier orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which has been set aside. Whether it is due to fraud on any other error is immaterial. The defendant-appellant cannot claim any rights on the basis of these entries. 11. After a perusal of the record I am satisfied that the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation holding the plaintiff-respondent to be grove-holder of the land in dispute had become final and conclusive and could not be challenged. The name of the defendant appellant was wrongly recorded in C.H. Form 45 but this entry was not final and could not override the judgment of the Deputy Director Consolidation. In view of this, the trespass of the defendant-appellant over the land in suit could be legally deemed to commence only after the conclusion of the consolidation operations. The order of the dismissal of the writ petition would be deemed to be the date of the conclusion of the consolidation operations. The defendant-appellant had no right or title in the land in suit and the suit was within time.The learned Additional Commissioner, has, in the circumstances, rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. The judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 12. I find no force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it.