JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated July 14, 1971 passed by Shri H.N. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, in appeal No. 61/1969 reversing the order dated October 21, 1969 passed by Judicial Officer, I, Barabanki, in case No. 29/37/56 of 1968 under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. The Gaon Sabha Rampur Joga had filed a suit for ejectment of Jawahir from plot Nos. 194, 199 anl 330, claiming that plots have been declared to be Gaon Sabha property and that possession has been delivered to it during consolidation operations and that the defendant was a trespasser. Jawahar contested the suit by pleading that the Land was allotted to him along with other land in lieu of his original Sirdari holding and possession as also delivered to him. He claimed to be Sirdar of the land in suit. The trial court holding the defendant to be a Sirdar dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has set aside the order of the trial court and has decreed the suit. Jawahir has now come up in second appeal. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first appeal in this case was filed without Resolution and through a private counsel without the permission of the Collector in writing and, was, therefore, incompetent and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel has invited reference to paras 128 and 131 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual. I, however, find that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and permission of the Collector for engaging a special counsel for prosecuting this case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Thus, it cannot be said that the first appeal ought to have been dismissed on the ground that it was filed through a special counsel and not through the District Government Counsel. 5. Thus, it cannot be said that the first appeal ought to have been dismissed on the ground that it was filed through a special counsel and not through the District Government Counsel. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land in dispute never vested in the Gaon Sabha and that the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the entry in C.H. Form 45 was final and conclusive and that the entry in H.C. Form No. 45 should be the same as the entry in C.H. Form No. 23. A perusal of the judgments of the courts below shows that the two courts have taken contradictory stand on the question whether the entry in C.H. Form 45 or 23 is final. The trial court has held that the entries in C.H. Form 45 are final and on the basis of this entry delivery of possession has to be made. The learned Additional Commissioner has, on the other had, held that the entry in C.H. Form 23 is final and the entry in C.H. Form 45 is to be ignored if it is not in accordance with the entry in C.H. Form 23. 6. Rule 46 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules reads as follow:- "(1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall prepare the (Provisional Consolidation Scheme) in C.H. Form 23 in consultation with the members of the consultation committee after making enquiries form as many tenure holders as he is able to collect. "(2) All cuttings and over writings in the Provision Consolidation Scheme shall be initiated and dated by the persons responsible for them and also by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. An Errata List in C.H. Form 6-B shall be prepared in duplicate in respect of the Statement of Proposals. A copy of the Errata list shall be sent to the Consolidation Officer for record in his office". Thus, according to the above rule the entries in C.H. Form 23 are regarding the provisional consolidation scheme. C.H. Form 45 is on the other hand a final record of right or Khatauni prepared during consolidation. This is prepared in accordance with section 27 of the U.P.C.H. Act and rule 97 of the Rules made thereunder. Section 27 reads as follows:- "New revenue records. C.H. Form 45 is on the other hand a final record of right or Khatauni prepared during consolidation. This is prepared in accordance with section 27 of the U.P.C.H. Act and rule 97 of the Rules made thereunder. Section 27 reads as follows:- "New revenue records. - (1) As soon as may be, after the final Consolidation Scheme has come into force, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared for each village , a new map, filed book and record of rights in respect of the consolidation area. On the basis of the entries in the map, as corrected under section 7, the Khasrachakbandi, the annual register prepared under section 10 and the allotment orders as finally made and is used in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act of 1901) shall, subject to such modification and alterations as may be prescribed, be followed in the preparation of the said map and records. (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. (3) After the issue of notification under section 52, the Collector shall instead of the map, filed-book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, filed-book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and provisions of section 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall apply to the maintenance of such map, filed-book and record of rights, as the case may be." Rule 97 reads as under :- "Thereafter the Consolidation Lekhpal shall with help of the Khasra Mutabiqat and other relevant records mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 27, prepare the Khatauni in C.H. Form 45 in duplicate." 7. A perusal of the above provisions would make it clear that the trial court has taken the correct view of law in holding that the entry in C.H. Form 45, and not in C.H. Form 23, are final, and the learned Additional Commissioner has manifestly erred in law in holding otherwise. in accordance with the entries made in C.H. Form 45, the defendant-appellant is recorded as Sirdar by the consolidation authorities and, therefore, the Gaon Sabha had not right to sue for ejectment. 8. in accordance with the entries made in C.H. Form 45, the defendant-appellant is recorded as Sirdar by the consolidation authorities and, therefore, the Gaon Sabha had not right to sue for ejectment. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that learned Additional Commissioner did not consider the material evidence of possession and his finding is vitiated in law. I find that the trial court has on the basis of oral and documentary evidence recorded the finding that possession of the land in suit was delivered to the defendant-appellant by the consolidation authorities and that the defendant-appellant was in possession. The learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the question of possession at all and has recorded no finding. Where the first appellate court confirms the judgment of the trail court, the omission to consider the evidence and the finding of fact is not a material error. Where, however, the first appellate court reverses the judgment of the trial court, the omission on its part to consider the material evidence and the finding of fact, is fatal and vitiate the appellate judgment. 9. The leaned counsel for the appellant has referred to Gram Samaj v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1969 R.D 356 where it has been held that Chairman of the L.M.C. could not have filed a written statement or preferred an appeal or revision without the Land Management Committee having passed a resolution. As seen above this ruling has no longer any application to the present case in view of the fact that the Pradhan id obtain, even though belated, a resolutions authorising him to prosecute his case. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Dalel Singh v. Board of Revenue 1968 R.D. 182 in which it has been held as follows:- "It may be pointed out that entries in C.H. From 25 are made from previous entries which have been confirmed and become final and are published under Section 23 read with rule 50. They are made under section 25, read with rule 52 and not under section 38(2) at all. C.H. Form 25 is in fact, the allotment order prepared in accordance with what had taken place earlier. If entries in C.H. Form 25 were corrected under section 38 (2) It meant that there was some obvious error." 11. They are made under section 25, read with rule 52 and not under section 38(2) at all. C.H. Form 25 is in fact, the allotment order prepared in accordance with what had taken place earlier. If entries in C.H. Form 25 were corrected under section 38 (2) It meant that there was some obvious error." 11. The above observation only means that a court can took into the question whether or not the entries in C.H. Forms have been made correctly. That may be so. It, however, does not decide the question whether the entries in C.H. Form 23 would supersede the entries in C.H. Form 45. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that the entries in C.H. From 45 would prevail those given in C.H. Form 23. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Shahzadi v. Gaon Sabha 1976 R.D. 293 in which a learned Member of this court has held that whenever an error apparent on the face of the record has been committed while preparing the record of rights during consolidation operations the same is liable to be corrected even after close of consolidation operations under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. While fully subscribing to this view of the learned member, I would hold that in such a case the proper procedure for the aggrieved party is first to get the entries in the records of rights as prepared by the consolidation authorities, corrected under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. However , unless this is done a suit for ejectment of a person recorded as Sirdar by the consolidation authorities is not maintainable. 12. The result is that the judgment of the lower appellate court is held to be erroneous in law. I hereby allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and court restore the order of the trial court. 13. Judgment signed, dated and pronounced in open court.