JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.- The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the orders dated 1st May, 1975, passed by Board of Revenue, dated 1st August, 1971, passed by Additional Commissioner and dated 16th August, 1969, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer sadar in a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by respondent no. 4 in respect of plot no. 234 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa. It was alleged by respondent no. 4 that he was sirdar of the land in dispute and that the father of he petitioner had encroached upon the said plot in 1972 fasli. Defendant did not raise any objection hence his claim was barred by Section 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The suit was contested by petitioner alleging that the suit was time barred and that he was in possession since prior to the date of vesting and that the claim was not barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. The defendant was not trespasser and the suit was liable to be dismissed. 2. The trial Court by order dated 16th August, 1969 decreed that suit holding that the claim of petitioner was barred by Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act and that at no point of the time petitioner was in continuous possession for more than six years, suit was within time and that during consolidation operation no objection was filed by petitioner. Plaintiff has become sirdar and petitioner has no title. In view of these findings suit was decreed and appeal preferred by petitioner was dismissed by Additional Commissioner and second appeal was also dismissed. Against these orders present petition has been filed. It has been urged by learned counsel for petitioner that his claim was not barred by Section 49 and that he matured rights as sirdar under Section 210 prior to start of consolidation operation and that land in dispute was kept out of consolidation operation, hence his claim cannot be barred by Section 49. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has repelled these contentions and contended that the claim of the petitioner was barred by Section 49 petitioner did not mature rights as sirdar and the suit was decreed correctly by all the authorities. All the findings recorded by courts below are findings of facts. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has repelled these contentions and contended that the claim of the petitioner was barred by Section 49 petitioner did not mature rights as sirdar and the suit was decreed correctly by all the authorities. All the findings recorded by courts below are findings of facts. 4. Having heard learned counsel for parties I am of the view that petition is devoid of merit. The trial court in detail considered the entire piece of evidence and has considered the case set up by petitioner and respondent no. 4. It has been held that even though it may be a fact that the land in dispute was kept out of consolidation operation but latter on it was brought under consolidation operation and delivery of possession was effected in view of C.H. Form as 25 etc. During consolidation operation this plot was recorded in the name of respondent no. 4, plaintiff. This discussion has been made on page 22 of the paper book in the judgment of the trial court. On page 20 of the paper book it had been held by trial court that before consolidation operation petitioner was not in continuous possession for period of six years. During consolidation operation the land was recorded in the name of plaintiff, hence the petitioner should have filed objection either under Section 9 or 9-A of U.P.C.H. Act. Since it was not done, the claim of petitioner was barred by Section 49. The trial court and first appellate court have considered the entire evidence on record and have recorded a finding that at no point of time petitioner was in continuous possession for more than six years and Respondent no. 4, plaintiff has become sirdar. Suit has been decreed holding it to be within time. I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record requiring an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution Judgments of the authorities 0, 1, 2 and 3 were correct. 5. In the result this petition lacks merits and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to cost.