JUDGMENT Dubri Dubey, Member - This is a review application No. 4 of 1975-76 against the judgment and decree passed by Sri N.B. Lal, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. in Second Appeal No. 132(z) of 1970-71, district Hardoi in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the relevant words. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the review application on the following grounds :- (i) the applicant was recorded as co-tenant along with the opposite party and the entry regarding his co-tenancy was made in C. H. Form 11 after due proceedings under Section 10 of the U.P. C.H. Act. In the absence of any objection or order to the contrary passed by the Consolidation authorities the same entry as in form C.H. 11 should have been recorded in Form C.H. 23 and subsequently in form C.H. 45. However, the entry in C.H. form 23 did not contain the name of the applicant as a co-tenant and as this entry was contrary to the entry in C.H. Form No. 11 the entry in C.H. Form No. 23 and subsequent forms which are not supported by any order of consolidation authorities should have been ignored by the learned Member of the Board. In not doing so the learned Member has committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record and as such this order deserves to be reviewed and is liable to be set aside; (ii) the entries in C.H. Form No. 23 and subsequent other forms are fraudulent and have no legal effect on the merits of the case and the bar of Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act cannot be applied to such a case. The learned Member has completely missed the evidence and documents on record and has erred in holding that the claim of the applicant is barred by the provisions of Section 49 of the U.P C.H. Act. The learned Member has failed to make the correct appraisal of the case on the merits and his order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The learned Member has failed to make the correct appraisal of the case on the merits and his order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has invited our attention to the views expressed by the Board in two earlier cases, Sayeed Uddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1975 R.D. 290 and Manpal v. Smt. Darshan Devi, 1975 R.D. 296 in these cases the Board is said to have held that a fictitious entry fraudulently made in the absence of any adjudication in the entry in C.H. Form No. 23 not being in accordance with the consolidation scheme and being contrary to the entry in C.H. form No. 11 will be ignored and there can be no bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act in regard to such fraudulent entries. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has reiterated the grounds mentioned by the learned Member of the Board in his judgment under review and pleaded that there is no ground or justification for review of that order which is based on correct appraisal of law and facts on record. The review application is therefore, liable to be rejected. 5. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the learned Member of the Board dated November 13, 1975. The issue raised on behalf of the applicant in the review application was considered in detail by the learned Member in paragraph 6 of his judgment. A perusal of this para shows that the learned Member came to the conclusion that as no objection against the entry in C.H. Form No. 25 was filed by the applicant under Section 21(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, the entry in C.H. Form 23 and subsequent forms became final against him after the denotification under Section 52 of the Act The learned Member also held that in this case the provisions of Section 49 of the Act applied and therefore the question of these entries cannot be considered by the revenue courts now. 6. The point for consideration is whether the learned Member has committed any error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusions. 6. The point for consideration is whether the learned Member has committed any error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusions. A perusal of para 6 of his judgment rules out this possibility inasmuch as the learned Member considered the controversial issue in detail and for reasons recorded in writing he rejected the claim of the applicant. The ground of rejection given by the learned Member is that the applicant's name was excluded from the provisional consolidation scheme. According to entry in C.H. Form No. 23. he was adversely affected and he had a legal right to make objection against the entry in C.H. Form No. 23 under Section 21(2) of the Act and if he did not choose to do so, he would be deemed to have acquiesced to the entry in C.H. Form No. 23. According to the learned Member, this entry cannot now be changed on the ground that the applicant was under no obligation to raise an objection and he did not do so. 7. We have examined this view with reference to the views expressed by the board in the two cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the first case Sayeed Uddin v. Gaon Sabha it has been established that the entry in C.H. Form 45 had been fictitiously made and therefore the learned Member of the Board held that such fraudulent entries could not be allowed to continue and had to be corrected as and when they were detected. It was further held that in such case the bar of Section 49 of U.P. C.H. Act would not apply. In the second case the learned Member of the Board held that the C. H. Forms 42 and 45 were not prepared in accordance with certain orders duly passed by A.C.O./C.O. as was evident from the entries in C.H. Form No. 25 available on record. As the entries in C.H. Forms No. 42 and 45 were not in accordance with the orders of competent authority the learned Member further held that in such a case the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act would not apply. As the entries in C.H. Forms No. 42 and 45 were not in accordance with the orders of competent authority the learned Member further held that in such a case the bar of Section 49 of the U.P. C.H. Act would not apply. Thus it would be seem that in both these cases it had been established before the Board that either the entry in C.H. form No. 45 was fictitious or was patently incorrect in view of the facts and evidence on record. In this particular case the applicant has failed to explain as to why he did not avail of the opportunity available to him under law to file objections against the provisional consolidation scheme whom his name had not been brought in C.H. Form No. 23. According to the provisions of Section 20(1) of the C.H. Act, the A.C.O. is required to send or cause to be sent to the tenure holders and persons interested the notices containing relevant extracts from the provisional consolidation scheme. He was further required to publish the provisional consolidation scheme in the village concerned. The applicant has not shown any reasons as to why he failed to make objections against that scheme which he should have done under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of sufficient to hold that the entry in C.H. Form No. 23 should be recorded as fictitious or fraudulent merely on the ground that it not in accordance with the entries in C.H. Form No. 11. There can be many circumstances under which an entry in C.H. Fora No. 23 may differ from the entry in C.H. Form No. 11. In review application the Board cannot either go into these circumstances and the entries in form 23 and is subsequent forms as the entry in C.H. Form No. 23 is finalised after due opportunity to the parties concerned and publication in the village. So far as this case is concerned, the applicant has not succeeded in establishing any grounds which may reach us to the conclusion that his name in C.H. Form No. 23 was removed fraudulently and the entry in this form was fictitious. In this view of the matter we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Member in the judgment under review. 8. In the result, we find that the applicant has failed to make out any case for I review. In this view of the matter we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Member in the judgment under review. 8. In the result, we find that the applicant has failed to make out any case for I review. The review application under consideration is hereby dismissed.