ORDER R.S. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-5-77 of the Board of Revenue by which the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed and the petitioner's suit was held to be not maintainable. 2. Respondent No. 2 claimed to be Bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Parmanand and Vidya Bhushan but the sale deed was not accepted as they were not Bhumidhars. It was held during the consolidation of holdings proceedings that Sri Thakurji Maharaj is the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute and that Respondent No. 2 is not, the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. According to the case of the petitioner chak was carved out in the name of the petitioner and possession was also delivered and the chak was allotted to the petitioner on 31-3-1964. Thereafter Respondent No. 2 took unauthorised possession in July, 1964. Thereupon the petitioner filed a suit under S. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of Respondent No. 2 and also claimed damages. The suit was contested by Respondent No. 2 on various grounds. 3. The suit was decreed by the trial court and damages were also awarded. An appeal was filed by Respondent No. 2 against the judgment and the decree of the trial court which was dismissed for ejectment but the damages were reduced. Respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner which was, however, allowed on the finding that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed before notification under S. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue before this Court in this writ petition. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit was filed on 23-11-1968 under S. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of Respondent No. 2 after the finalisation of the consolidation scheme under S. 23 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the petitioner was also put in possession over the chak allotted to it. Thereafter on a trespass by the defendant respondent No. 2 the suit filed by the petitioner under S. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was maintainable. It was further contended that there was nothing to be decided during the consolidation of holdings proceedings. Respondent No. 2 had already contested up to this Court and his claim was rejected by this Court in special appeal. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that in view of S. 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the suit was not maintainable as no notification under S. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued when the suit was filed. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. A plain reading of S. 49 of the said Act shows that no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to any right in any land or any other matter in respect of which the proceedings could have been taken under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. On the facts of the case it is quite evident that both the parties had fought out for their right, title and interest up to this Court and the claim of Respondent No. 2 was finally rejected. The result was that claim of the parties had already been decided and the petitioner was put in possession. Therefore, the right, title and interest of the parties in respect of the land in dispute between the parties was not to be decided again in the consolidation of holdings proceedings. It was only that a trespass took place after the possession was delivered to the petitioner over the chak allotted to him Respondent No. 2 did not get any title during the consolidation of holdings proceedings. Therefore, on the fresh trespass it was only a question for his ejectment. 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 S. 23 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or putting any tenure-holder in possession over his chak. Therefore, I am of the view that S. 49 of the said Act is no bar to such a suit. Therefore, I am of the view that S. 49 of the said Act is no bar to such a suit. In Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh ( AIR 1974 SC 1657 ) it has been held that when the cause of action arose after the finalisation and publication of the scheme under S. 23 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is not a matter in regard to which an application could be filed under the provision of the aforesaid Act within the meaning of cl. (2) of S. 49. Thus the other limb of S. 49 is not attracted. The result is that the plea of bar of Civil Court's jurisdiction under S. 49 to investigate and adjudicate upon the title to the land or the ownership has no substance. Nothing done in the consolidation proceedings is undone by that suit. To urge that the formal notification under S. 52 not having been published the court had no jurisdiction is to misread S. 49 and to exalt a ritual into a legal reality. In the present case the notification under S. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued on 12-4-1969 even before the suit was decided by the trial court. Therefore. S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stands in no way as bar against the jurisdiction of the revenue court from entertaining any suit before notification under S. 52 of the Act is issued. The view taken by the Board of Revenue that the suit is barred by S. 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is patently erroneous in law and cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 12-5-1977 is quashed and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the second appeal afresh according to law and in view of the observations made above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.