JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)- This second appeal is filed by Ismail, defendant. The plaintiff Smt. Basiran alleged that she is sirdar of the land in suit while the defendant no. 1 was Asami, as finally decided by Dy. Director Consolidation, Moradabad also on 12-1-71. As the disability of the plaintiff ceased and she wanted to bring the land in suit under her cultivation, she asked the defendant to remove his possession but he on 1-9-71 refused to do so. As such suit was filed for ejectment on 16-9-1971. Besides other pleas, defendant had taken the plea that suit having been filed before denotification under Section 52 U.P.C.H. Act was not maintainable as consolidation operations were still going on. After taking evidence of the parties and considering all the aspect of the case, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 28-3-1972 though it was held that notification under Section 52 U.P.C.H. Act had not taken place by that time. The appeal filed by the defendant against this decision was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. Bareilly on 3-4-1973. Both the Courts below held that the suit under Section 202 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could have been filed even if the notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act had not taken place by that time. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that as consolidation operations were going on in the village, the suit under Section 202 could not have been filed till the village is denotified under Section 52 of U.P.C.H. Act and as such suit will be barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. According to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent such suit was maintainable and was not barred by Section 49 of the Act. 3. A perusal of various provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 shows that there is no provision in it regarding the actual ejectment of asami. Even if consolidation authorities held the plaintiffs as bhumidhar or sirdar and the defendant as Asami, the consolidation authorities can not eject asami. 4. In Smt. Ram Kali v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1966 R.D. 373, Mr. Justice B.N. Nigam of Allahabad High Court observed that a tres-passer could be ejected during the consolidation of holding proceedings but an Asami could not. 4. In Smt. Ram Kali v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1966 R.D. 373, Mr. Justice B.N. Nigam of Allahabad High Court observed that a tres-passer could be ejected during the consolidation of holding proceedings but an Asami could not. He further observed that suit for ejectment of trespasser would be barred under Section 49 of U.P.C.H Act but a suit for ejectment of Asami would not be barred. 5. In Ram Briksh v. Permanand, 1971 R.D. 400, Board of Revenue held that suit for ejectment of trespasser was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act but suit for ejectment of asami was not barred. 6. In Suba Singh v. Mahendar Singh, 1973 R.D. 455, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case where the cause of action arose after the finalisation and publication of Scheme under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act, held that to urge that the final notification under Section 52 not having been published the Courts had no jurisdiction, is to misread Section 49 and to exalt a retual into a legal reality."This case was fully approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Saiyad, 1980 R.D. 300. 7. In a recent case Thakurji Maharaj v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1982 R.D. 220, where trespass took place after the finalisation of scheme under Section 23 U.P.C.H. Act over the land in suit allotted to the Chak-holder, Mr. Justice R.S. Singh of the Allahabad High Court observed that there is no provision in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for the ejectment of any trespasser after the finalisation of the consolidation scheme under Section 23 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. It was further observed that Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stands in no way as bar against jurisdiction of Revenue Court from entertaining any suit before notification under Section 52 of the Act is issued. 8. In the present case before me the cause of action of the present suit arose on 1-9-71 after the finalisation of chak and the rights of the parties. Where the cause of action arose after finalisation of the consolidation scheme under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act, is not barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. Such suit can be entertained by the Court even before the publication of notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 9. Where the cause of action arose after finalisation of the consolidation scheme under Section 23 of U.P.C.H. Act, is not barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. Such suit can be entertained by the Court even before the publication of notification under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 9. There is no force in the present second appeal which is dismissed with costs and lawyer's fee of Rs. 50/-.