JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The Consolidation Authorities have upheld the claim of the opposite parties in respect of the disputed plot No. 1023 on the following grounds:- (i) That the petitioners father Lal Madho Singh had filed a suit for ejectment in 1945 in respect of this disputed plot and two other plots but the suit was decreed only in respect of the remaining two plots and not in respect of the disputed plot. The explanation of the petitioner is that the suit was dismissed in respect of plot No. 1023 merely on the ground that this plot was already in possession of the plaintiff of the suit, namely, the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners. No counter has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties against this assertion contained in para 5 of the supplementary-affidavit dated May 25, 1982. (ii) That the petitioner had acquired Adhivasi rights in pursuance of the entries of occupation in 1356F. Section 20(b) (i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act however lays down that Adhivasi rights on the basis of the occupancy entry of 1356 will accrue only in respect of the land other than grove land. In this case the Commissioner's report showed that there were a number of trees on the plot, but no finding has been given as to whether the number was or was not such as to precluded cultivation. Mere absence of entry about grove in revenue papers is not conclusive if the trees actually found on the plot are quite old and numerous. (iii) That the petitioners were barred because they had not filed any objection under Section 240 B of the Act against the compensation statement. However as held in Awadesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue 1974 R.D. 286, by a Bench of this court the compensation statement would operate as resjudicata only where possession has been determined in pursuance of proceedings consequent/on an objection of the nature contemplated by Section 24(2) (a) and not otherwise. There is no finding in the instant case as to whether any such proceedings did or did not take place before compensation statement was finalised. 2. The decision of the Deputy Director dated April 30, 1976 is thus vitiated by mis-application or non-application of mind to the relevant facts. There is no finding in the instant case as to whether any such proceedings did or did not take place before compensation statement was finalised. 2. The decision of the Deputy Director dated April 30, 1976 is thus vitiated by mis-application or non-application of mind to the relevant facts. The writ petition is accordingly allowed ex parte, and the order, Annexure 7 to the petition, passed by the Deputy Director on April 30, 1976, is here by quashed. The Deputy Director shall decide the revision afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. It will however be open to the parties to adduce any relevant documentary evidence on all the three points mentioned above or on other cognate points when the matter goes back to the Deputy Director.