JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member. - The only point involved in the present Second Appeal is whether the suit under Section 229B/209 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act instituted by the plaintiff-appellant Smt. Sudesha against Jokhan etc. on 15-3-1975 was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 2. The relevant facts are that the village Bupaudha, Pargana Haveli Tahsil Chunar district Mirzapur was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 27-5-1961. On 25-3-1964 the Chak No. 49 was confirmed under Section 23 of U.P. C.H. Act as Sirdari land of Smt. Newasia widow of Fagu. On 3-7-65 she deposited 10 times rent and became its Bhumidhar. She executed registered sale deed on 18-3-65 in favour of the present plaintiff Smt. Sudeshi Devi. As the village was not de-notified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act by that date, Smt. Sudesha plaintiff gave an application for mutation before the A.C.O. on 16-6-1966. On 12-9-1966 Badri father of the respondent Jokhan filed an objection against this mutation application denying the execution of sale deed by Smt. Newasia and alleged that Smt. Newasia actually died before the date of the alleged sale deed. The plaintiff claimed that, Smt. Newasia died on 16-11-1965 about 3 months after the said sale deed. Badri claimed himself as heir of Smt. Newasia. He also alleged that he was co-tenant of Smt. Newasia the property being acquired by the common ancestor. This mutation application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 8-12-1968 against which order an appeal was filed before S.O.C. In the meaning the village was de-notified on 11-5-1968 under Section 52 of U.P. C.H. Act. On 16-2-1969 Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal and rejected the mutation application holding the sale deed as fictitious. The revision filed against this order was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 23-7-70 This order was challenged by the plaintiff in Writ Petition on 635 of 1971 which was admitted on 16-7-75. During the pendency of Writ Petition the plaintiff filed the present suit under Section 229B-209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class. Ultimately the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on Allahabad on 14-5-71. 3. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble Mr. During the pendency of Writ Petition the plaintiff filed the present suit under Section 229B-209 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class. Ultimately the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on Allahabad on 14-5-71. 3. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitav Banerji observed as follow: "Both the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director went into questions of title in as much as they considered whether a fraud was practised, as to whether she was physically or mentally competent to execute the sale deed and whether the sale deed actually executed her. Another question that was considered was whether a Bhumidhari sanad could at all be issued in favour of the dead person. In my opinion all these question which have been gone into by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their decisions were misconceived for it is well settled that mutation proceedings ordinarily relate to the question of possession and do not decide a question of title. There is a separate remedy by way of a suit to decided question of title. In the present case respondents No. 1 and 2 have also decided the question of title. This finding throw a shadow of the title of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the village has been de-notified under Section 52 of the Act, by a notification dated the 11th May, 1968. This fact was not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. Consequently no useful purpose would be served by settling aside the order of the respondents nos. 1 and 2 and sending the case back for being decided afresh. The remedy lies in filing a regular suit to establish her title." 4. Both the courts below held that the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities on the mutation application was under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on merit and was final between parties. According to them the effect of the order of the Hon'ble High Court was that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was confirmed. The observation made by the High Court that the regular suit can be filed cannot give right to the plaintiff to the present suit which was in fact filed before that order. 5. According to them the effect of the order of the Hon'ble High Court was that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was confirmed. The observation made by the High Court that the regular suit can be filed cannot give right to the plaintiff to the present suit which was in fact filed before that order. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the decision of the Consolidation Authorities was not under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. According to him after the confirmation of the Chak under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act new revenue records were prepared under Section 27 of U.P.C.H. Act. U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 was applicable for the correction of maps or for mutation in the record of rights prepared under this section. According to him Section 12 was meant only for the correction of the old records prepared under Section 10 of U.P.C.H. Act. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that both the courts below erred in holding that the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was final. In fact the last order was the order of the High Court which was the final order. The judgment given by the Hon'ble High Court on 16-7-1975 was the last pronouncement in the matter between parties and as such on the principles of resjudicata it was the defendant who was debarred from raising the plea that the present suit was not maintainable. 7. The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents are that the observations of the Hon'ble High Court that the remedy of the plaintiff lies in filing the regular suit to establish her title was only the observation of law which was not binding on the parties. According to him this proposition of law was not correct and as such is not binding in the present suit. The decisions of the courts below were correct as the decisions of consolidation authorities were under section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. 8. In order to determine whether the present suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act or not, we have to examine the various provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules framed under the Act. 9. 8. In order to determine whether the present suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act or not, we have to examine the various provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules framed under the Act. 9. The purpose of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 was the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture. The consolidation proceedings in an area starts when the required notification under Section 4 of the Act is issued by the State Government. On the publication of the notification, all proceedings for correction of records and the suits and proceedings in respect of declaration of right or interest in any land lying in the area, pending before any court or Authority, abates under Section 5 of the Act. Then starts the process of the revision of filed book and current annual register, determination of valuation and shares in joint holdings under Section 3 of the Act. By publishing these field book and current annual register etc. objections are invited under Section 9 of the Act. After the disposal of these objections etc. a revised annual register in C.H. form 11 is prepared under rule 28 and then published under Section 10(1) of the Act. The decision of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer relating to claims etc. are final subject to appeal before S.O.C. under Section 11 of the Act and the revision before the D.D.C. under Section 48 of the Act. 10. Subsequent changes by way of transfer inheritance etc. are made in these revised records under Section 12 of the Act, which is as follows- "12. Decision of matter relating to the changes and transactions affecting rights or interests recorded in revised records-(1). All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of Section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under Sections 7 to 9 were started or in progress may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not later than the date of notification under Section 52 or under sub-section (1) of Section 6. (2) The provisions of Sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it was a matter raised under the aforesaid sections." 11. The orders passed under Section 12 of the Act relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interest recorded in the annual register published under Section 10(1) of the Act are to be noted in the red ink in the columns of the register meant for the purpose until a fresh record of right is prepared under Section 27 of the Act vide rule 16-A(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules which is as follows:- "16-A (1). In view of the fact that the map, the filed book and the annual register of each village under consolidation operations shall be thoroughly revised under the provisions of Sections 7 to 11 of the Act, before a (Consolidation Scheme) is prepared for unit, it will be necessary for the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to get these records prepared annually during the period a village remains under consolidation operations. In order to maintain the existing record of rights, he shall cause to be brought upto date the records published under Section 10(1) by getting all orders relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interest recorded in the annual register, which are passed under Section 12 of the Act, noted in red ink in the columns of the register meant for the purposes until a fresh record of right is prepared under Section 27 of the Act." 12. Under rule 23 and 24 Consolidator, A.C.O. etc, do the partal from filed to filed for doing actual work of consolidation and prepare a statement in C.H. form 18 of plots not to be consolidation vide rule 24(4) of the U.P.C.H. Rules. Then a provisional consolidation scheme is prepared in C.H. form 23 part-I vide rule 46 in which column no. 8 is regarding the area excluded from consolidation while column no. 9 is regarding the area included in consolidation. Ultimately this provisional consolidation scheme is confirmed under Section 23 of the U.P.C.H. Act and new revenue records including filed book and the records of rights are prepared under Section 27 of the Act which is as follows:- "27. New revenue records-(1). 9 is regarding the area included in consolidation. Ultimately this provisional consolidation scheme is confirmed under Section 23 of the U.P.C.H. Act and new revenue records including filed book and the records of rights are prepared under Section 27 of the Act which is as follows:- "27. New revenue records-(1). As soon as maybe 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 field-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 Khasra Chakbadi, the annual register prepared under Section 10 and the allotment orders an finally made and issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), shall subject to such modifications 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 provision 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, field-book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field-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, held-book and records of rights, as the case may be." 13. After renumbering the chaks, khasra mutaviqat in C.H. form 41 is to be prepared under rule 93 while the fine khatauni in C.H. form, 45 is to be prepared under rule 97 which is to be published under rule 98 and new khata number is entered in khatanui and column no. 5 of the khasra under rule 99. Thus new revenue record are prepared under Section 27 of the Act. 14. Delivery of possession over new chaks takes place under Section 28 of the Act while it's consequences are mentioned in Section 30 of the Act. These Consolidation operations come to a close by de-notification under Section 52 of the Act but the subject to the decision of the Writ Petition, if any. 14. Delivery of possession over new chaks takes place under Section 28 of the Act while it's consequences are mentioned in Section 30 of the Act. These Consolidation operations come to a close by de-notification under Section 52 of the Act but the subject to the decision of the Writ Petition, if any. It means that the decision given in the Writ Petition is to be deemed as final decision in the consolidation proceedings. 15. Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act is as follows:- "49. Bar to Civil Court Jurisdiction-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 or adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such Land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 16. Section 49 U.P. C.H. Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil and Revenue Court regarding the adjudication of rights and title of the tenure holder regarding the land included in Consolidation area during Consolidation operations. The subsequent adjudication of the rights and title arising out of the Consolidation proceedings, in regard to which a preceding could or ought to have been taken under the U.P.C.H. Act are barred by Section 49 U.P.C.H. Act in the same manner as by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the principle of rejudicata. 17. A study of the Consolidation scheme show that the consolidation Authorities are required to decided finally rights and title of parties during consolidation operations regarding the land within consolidation area to enable them to consolidate the holdings of tenure holders. It ends with the final preparation of the revised records under Section 27 U.P.C.H. Act subject to certain formalities such as demarcation of boundaries, fixation of pillars at the spot etc. As soon as this work is completed the consolidation operations end with de-notification under Section 52 of the Act. It ends with the final preparation of the revised records under Section 27 U.P.C.H. Act subject to certain formalities such as demarcation of boundaries, fixation of pillars at the spot etc. As soon as this work is completed the consolidation operations end with de-notification under Section 52 of the Act. The scheme of Act has no scope for the adjudication of the right and title of the parties arising out of subsequent inheritance, transfer etc. of the chaks after the preparation of the revised new revenue records. The subsequent changes by inheritant or transfer of chaks by sale etc. can be made into this revised records under U.P. Land Revenue Act only. 18. In fact there is no provision in U.P.C.H. Act for the subsequent correction and mutation in the new revenue records prepared under Section 27 of the Act which are to be done under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The intention of the Legislation was never to give the power of subsequent final adjudication of rights and titles of the parties, to the Consolidation Authorities after the formation of the new chaks. Had this been the intention, besides Section 10(1) of the Act, Section 27 (1) would also have been mentioned in the Section 12 of the Act. In fact in order to achieve the purpose of act this power of subsequent adjudication of right and title by the Consolidation Authorities was not necessary at all. Practically the purposes of the Act was achieved by preparing the revised revenue records after the formation of the chaks and by delivering possession to the chakholders. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was right in holding in Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1657 and in Karbalai Begum v. Mohammad Sayeed, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 77. that an application for mutation on the basis of inheritance when cause of action arose after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under Section 23 is not the matter in regard to which an application could be filed under the provisions of the Act within the meaning of clause 2 of Section 49 of the Act. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on served rulings to show that the present mutation application was in fact under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and as such the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on served rulings to show that the present mutation application was in fact under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act and as such the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. I will deal with these rulings one by one. 20. In Mangat Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1974 U.R.R. Case 184, the Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. (as he was then) observed that if a tenure holder recorded in the register of rights in the annual register prepared under Section 10 dies after the enforcement of the final consolidation scheme, an application for mutation of the names would not be entertainable under Section 27. Such an application would lie only under Section 12. 21. The next case Mahendra Singh v. Gokul Singh, 1975 R.D. page 40 was decided by Mr. G.S. Sial, Member. Board of Revenue. In this case the chak had been carved out in the name of Smt. Bhawani Kunwar and thereafter she died. Smt. Shees Kunwar was ordered to be mutated by the Consolidation Authorities and therefore, she said the land to the plaintiff-appellant. It was held that by virtue of the order of the Consolidation courts the daughter had been mutated in place of her mother and that order was final and could not be challenged in subsequent suit as it was under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act in which question as to title was decided. 22. In Gauri v. Rasulan, 1976 (2) R.D. 313, Mr. H.N. Agarwal, Member, Board of Revenue held that the order of mutation passed by the Consolidation court barred jurisdiction of Revenue of Civil Court under Section 49 of C.H. Act. 23. In Ram Niwas Bansidhar, 1977 R.D. 331, Mr. S. Mubarak Hasan, Member, Board of Revenue, held that the title of the parties in the land in dispute having been determined in proceedings under Section 12 the suit was barred under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. 24. The decisions of the High Court and the Board of Revenue were based on the interpretation of the words "But not later than the date of notification under Section 52" used in Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. In my opinion the use of these words was not made to cover the cases of succession and transfers arising subsequent to the confirmation of consolidation scheme under Section 23 of the Act. In my opinion the use of these words was not made to cover the cases of succession and transfers arising subsequent to the confirmation of consolidation scheme under Section 23 of the Act. Section 12 is meant for the changes etc. to be made in the old Revenue Records published under Section 10(1) of the Act. After the preparation of new records of rights under Section 27 of the Act no further change is to be made in this old Revenue Records in view of the provisions of rule 16-A(1) of U.P.C.H. Rules. The words "but not later than the date of notification under Section 52" are used in Section 12 simply to cover those cases in which subsequent changes have to be made in the old revenue records regarding the plots not be consolidated vide C.H. form 18 and column-8 of C.H. form 23, part-I regarding which no chak was prepared. 25. In my opinion these rulings are no longer good law so far as they laid down that the application for mutation on the basis of inheritance or transfer when the cause of action arose after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under Section 23 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, 1980 R.D. p. 300 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 77, observed as follows: "The last ground on which the High Court non-suited the appellant was that after the Chakbandi was completed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the suit was barred by Section 49 of the said Act. It is well settled that unless there is an express provision barring a suit on the basis of title, the courts will not easily infer a bar of suit to establish the title of parties. In Suba Singh v. Mahedra Singh and other, A.I.R 1974 S.C. 1657, this court made the following observations- "It was thus abundantly clear that an application for mutation on the basis of inheritance when the cause of action arose, after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under Section 23, is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed under the provision of this Act, within the meaning of clause 2 of Section 49. Thus, the other limb of section also is not attracted. Thus, the other limb of section also is not attracted. The result is that the plea of the bar of the Civil Court's jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the title to the land or the sonship of the plaintiff has no substance." In view of the clear decision of this court referred to above the High Court erred in law in holding that the present suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act." 26. In the present case the transfer of chak had taken place after the finalization of the scheme under Section 23 of the Act. By applying for mutation Smt. Sudesha Devi simply made the application under the U.P. Land Revenue Act which cannot be an application under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act as she did not want to get the change effected in the old records published under Section 10(1) of U.P.C.H. Act. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitav Banerji of Allahabad High Court while deciding the Writ Petition no. 633 of 1971 rightly observed on 16-7-1975 that the remedy lies in filing of regular suit to establish her title. 27. The result is that the present suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and both the courts below erred in holding that it was so barred. As the trial court has not decided the other issues regarding the title on merit the case is to be remanded to the trial court. This second appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Learned Additional Commissioner on 18-10-77 and by the trial court on 8-4-76 are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court, for deciding the case on merit.