ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition, directed against the order of consolidation authorities, are that ancestor of opposite parties No. 5 to 7, described hereinafter as Cook brothers, were tenants. They mortgaged the land with Kamta Upadhya, father of petitioners, long before the date of vesting. It is not disputed that mortgage has not been redeemed. Ram Chandra Shukla, opposite party No. 4 filed a suit under Section 59/61 of U. P. Tenancy Act against Cook brothers which was decreed. The petitioners were admittedly, not parties to this suit. In 1957 Kamta filed a suit under Section 229B of U. P. Z. A. Act 1 of 1951 against Ram Chandra and Cooks and sought a declaration that he was sirdar of all the five plots. The trial court decreed his suit for one plot and for the remaining four plots held Kamta to be asami. Aggrieved against this decision Ram Chandra filed appeal for all plots, Cooks for one plot and Kamta filed cross-objection in respect of four plots. The Additional Commissioner decided the appeal on 16-3-1960. He held that Ram Chandra had no right and his appeal was consequently dismissed. The cross-objection of Kamta was also dismissed. But the appeal of Cooks was allowed in respect of one plot, of which Kamta was declared Sirdar, and it was held that Kamta was assami of all the plots. Ram Chandra filed second appeal against this order and the Board of Revenue dismissed it on 25-4-1961. These orders of Revenue Courts became final. In 1963 Ram Chandra filed a suit for injunction and can Ration of the Revenue, Court decree which has abated, due to enforcement of consolidation, in second appeal. 2. In the basic year records prepared under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Ram Chandra was shown as Sirdar. The petitioner who are sons of Kamta, therefore filed an objection under Sec. 9A and claimed that they being assami and in possession and no suit having been brought for ejectment against them they acquired rights of Sirdar under Section 204 of Z. A. Act. The entry in favour of Ram Chandra was challenged as incorrect as he had been held to have no right in an earlier litigation which operated as res-judicata. Ram Chandra once again claimed. The entry in favour of Ram Chandra was challenged as incorrect as he had been held to have no right in an earlier litigation which operated as res-judicata. Ram Chandra once again claimed. -that the land was settled in his favour by Raja Saheb Majholi and he was Sirdar. The plea raised on his behalf was the same as before the Revenue Courts except that Cooks in+ revenue courts had contested the claim, both of petitioners and Ram Chandra alleging that they never surrendered, a plea which, was raised by both parties, but before the Consolidation Officer they filed an objection and admitted that they had surrendered and I land was settled in favour of Ram Chandra. 3. The plea of res judicata has been repelled by all the consolidation authorities on queer reasonings. The Consolidation Officer held that petitioner and Ram Chandra were both bound by the order of Revenue Courts but as Cooks have been admitting Rant -Chandra as Sirdar and none of the parties-can be held to be Sirdar Cooks are estopped from challenging Ram Chandras right. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that Ram Chandra was entered in basic year. The only person who could object was Cook and as he did not challenge the entry could not be expunged as that could be done only on a claim made by person having better rights. The Deputy Director also adopted the same reasoning. 4. The revenue courts having held in earlier litigation, between parties, that Ram Chandra was not Sirdar the consolidation authorities were debarred on the principle of finality and conclusive to go into the matter again. It is indeed strange that they accepted the principle of finality yet in effect reversed the finding. Chapter VIII of Z. A. Act defines three classes of tenure, Bhumidhar, Sirdar and assami. Section 131 lays down the manner in which a person acquires right of Sirdar. It reads as under: "Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a sirdar and shall have all rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon sirdars. Section 131 lays down the manner in which a person acquires right of Sirdar. It reads as under: "Every person belonging to any of the following classes shall be called a sirdar and shall have all rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon sirdars. by or under this Act, namely - (a) every person who, as a consequence of the acquisition of estates, becomes a sirdar under Section 19; (b) every person who is admitted as sirdar of vacant land under the provisions of this Act, and (c) every person who is in any other manner acquires the rights of a sirdar under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force." Ram Chandra did not become Sirdar under Section 19. He was not admitted as sirdar of vacant land nor is there any provision under which he could acquire sirdari rights by admission of Cooks. Section 153 of the Act debars a sirdar from transferring his interest. The Act therefore put a specific restriction and Cooks could not in any manner either admission or acquiescence conduct themselves in a manner which may amount to transfer of their interest. The admission of Cooks could not override the law. An admission made by them was non est and no rights could accrue to Ram Chandra on their admission. Even assuming that Cooks were estopped the petitioner who was an assami and a tenure-holder could claim that the entry was incorrect and name of Ram Chandra be expunged. He had not only a better, but a superior right in comparison to Ram Chandra who had absolutely none. The entry in bis favour could be challenged even by a trespasser if he was in possession what to say of petitioners who were assamies and tenure-holders. 5. The learned counsel for Ram Chandra urged that as in the earlier case Cooks had pleaded that they were tenants and had not surrendered the land and before consolidation authorities they admitted to have surrendered the finding on the issue that Ram Chandra was not sirdar did not operate as res judicata because what operates as res judicata under Section 11, C. P. C. is the finding on issue and the issue being not the same the judgment did not operate as res judicata. The learned counsel relied on Section 11, C. P. C. and decision reported in Kanhaiya Lal v. Dy. Director, Consolidation, Pratapgarh, 1974 All LJ 552. The argument is devoid of any merit as the bar on the court from trying any issue is if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same which has been directly and substantially in former suit. The issue in the former suit was whether petitioner was Sirdar or Ram Chandra was Sirdar. The issue in the present case is the same. It does not change only because Cooks altered their position. Moreover the suit having been decided earlier by Revenue Court, a court of exclusive jurisdiction, and the present dispute being before consolidation authorities it is not Section 11 but general principle of res judicata that applies. It would not be out of place to mention, in this connection, that even consolidation authorities have not accepted Ram Chandras plea that the judgment did not operate as res judicata. 6. The learned counsel then fell on pleas which are more technical in nature but without substance. It was urged that basic year entry was in favour of Ram Chandra and therefore the burden to show that it was incorrect was on petitioners. The learned counsel maintained that Cook brothers who could be the rightful claimant having not filed any objection the entry attained finality under Section 11A of Consolidation Act. And as Cooks did not claim any right their right and interest stood extinguished and with the extinction of their interest the right of the petitioners also came to an end under Section 191 of Z. A. Act. 7. The right to file an objection under Sec. 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been conferred on every person to whom notice has been sent or any other person interested. It has not been shown that no notice was sent to petitioners. Even otherwise petitioners being assami were interested persons and were entitled to object against the basic year entry showing Ram Chandra as Sirdar, The non-filing of objection by Cooks did not deprive the petitioners from getting their claim adjudicated nor did it render them persons not interested. It has not been shown that no notice was sent to petitioners. Even otherwise petitioners being assami were interested persons and were entitled to object against the basic year entry showing Ram Chandra as Sirdar, The non-filing of objection by Cooks did not deprive the petitioners from getting their claim adjudicated nor did it render them persons not interested. If Cooks did not file any objection under Section 9 they may be debarred from claiming any right or filing any objection at a later stage but how could that confer sirdari rights on Ram Chandra is not easy to comprehend. The basic year records, prepared under Consolidation Act are not conclusive. It is only a revised record the correctness and authenticity of which has to be examined by consolidation authorities under Sections 9 and 9A. Section 9 empowers Assistant Consolidation Officer to correct clerical mistake in statement of principles before sending the notice to tenure-holder and Section 9A confers jurisdiction on Assistant Consolidation Officer not only to settle disputes but to correct mistakes after making such inquiry as he considers necessary whether an objection is filed or not. To say therefore that as Cooks did not file any objection Ram Chandras name could not be expunged from basic year record is ignoring the provisions of law. It is clear that primarily it is the duty of the consolidation authorities to maintain correct records. The mi take in records may come to their knowledge on their inquiry or it may be brought to their notice by any person interested. As regards Section 11 A, of Consolidation of Holdings Act it incorporates the rule of constructive res judicata. It could apply against a person who had a right to file objection under Section 9 but did not do so. How can it apply against a person who has filed the objection under Section 9 is difficult to appreciate. In any case the default :of Cooks could not recoil on petitioners. 8. The argument that as Cooks did not file any objection under Section 9 of Consolidation Act their rights extinguished and with that extinguished the right of petitioners under Section 191, Z. A. Act is misconceived. The interest of a sirdar extinguishes under Sec. 190 of Z. A. Act. 8. The argument that as Cooks did not file any objection under Section 9 of Consolidation Act their rights extinguished and with that extinguished the right of petitioners under Section 191, Z. A. Act is misconceived. The interest of a sirdar extinguishes under Sec. 190 of Z. A. Act. It reads as under: "(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 172, the interest of a Sirdar in a holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished - (a) When he dies leaving no heir entitled to inherit in accordance with the provision of this Act; (b) When the holding has been declared was abandoned in accordance with the provisions of Section 186; (c) When he surrenders his holding or part thereof; (cc) When the holding or part thereof has been transferred, let out or used in contravention of the provisions of this Act; (d) When the land comprised in the holding has been acquired under any law for the time being in force relating to the acquisition of land; (e) When he has been rejected in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (f) When he has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply mutatis mutandis to asamis also." It is apparent that none of the contingencies contemplated under this section took place and therefore there was no question of extinction of Cooks interest. The remedy of the Cooks may be barred due to Section 11A and ;S. 49 of Consolidation Act but it cannot be said that their right extinguished. 9. Nor is there any merit in the submission that an assami cannot be without a sirdar or Bhumidar, and even if it be so Ram Chandra cannot be held to be Sirdar on the reasoning that without him petitioners cannot be assamis. The petitioners have been held to be assamis. They shall continue to be recorded as such. Ram Chandra having no right the entry in basic year recording him as Sirdar shall be expunged. 10. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by all the three consolidation authorities are quashed. The name of Ram Chandra Shukla from basic year records, shall be expunged. The Consolidation Officer is directed to give effect to above direction. The petitioners shall be entitled to its costs.