JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner R.S. Tripathi at some length and perused the impugned orders passed by the consolidation authorities. In the present case, dispute is confined to plot 1140M area 2 bighas 12 biswas in respect of which entry in Recordofright, i. e. basic year Khatauni was found 'Matrook'. The petitioner claimed that he is groveholder of the plot in dispute. Some other objections were also filed claiming to be cotenure holders along with the said claimant in the land in dispute. 2. Learned consolidation officer after taking evidence of parties ordered that plot No. 1140M, area 2 bighas 13 biswas, in respect of which entry was 'Matrook' in the Khatauni, be recorded as Talab, which (sic) reaching to this conclusion, it was found that the said area of plot No. 1140M was recorded as Talab in III settlement. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 24111976. Still feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred revision which too was dismissed vide order dated 23111982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thereupon, a restoration application was filed which was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 1931983 as it was held that the revision was already decided and disposed of on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since there was 'Matrook' entry in the Khatauni, and, as such, it should have(been) determined whether the petitioners had abandoned or surrendered their interest in the land in dispute or not. Learned counsel referred to the dictionary meaning of the word 'Matrook' and submitted that since the petitioners had not surrendered their interest in the land in dispute not they had abandoned the land in question in any manner, and, as such, the 'Matrook' entry deserves to be expunged. I do not find any merit in this contention. 4. First of all it be understood as to what is meant by the phrase 'Matrook' entry. It is provided in the land record manual that in respect of every plot an entry in the RecordofRights in the name of its tenureholder or that it belongs to Gaon Sabha is to be recorded. 4. First of all it be understood as to what is meant by the phrase 'Matrook' entry. It is provided in the land record manual that in respect of every plot an entry in the RecordofRights in the name of its tenureholder or that it belongs to Gaon Sabha is to be recorded. If in respect of any plot or portion thereof there exists no entry in the Khatauni, then in respect of such plot or portion thereof, it is said that the entry is 'Matrook'. Thus, what one understands by 'Matrook' entry is that in the khatauni there exists no entry in respect of certain plot or part thereof. In such a case title of the claimants in respect of that plot or part thereof is to be decided on merits where an objection is filed under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. 5. It is not disputed that in respect of plot No. 1140B area 2 bighas 12 biswas there was no entry in the Khatauni. Petitioners claimed to be groveholder of the said area of the plot in question. The learned Consolidation Officer, after taking evidence of the parties recorded a finding that the said area of plot No. 1140M is Talab and be recorded as such. This finding was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged this finding and urged that since in an earlier correction of papers case the name of applicant Badri Prasad and others was ordered to be recorded as Sirdar of plot No. 1140M and others vide order dated 20327, and, as such, the petitioner's title in respect of aforesaid area of plot No. 1140M measuring 2 bighas 12 biswas should have been upheld and the name of the petitioner should have been recorded as Bhumidhar on said portion of plot in dispute. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 6. It is well settled that orders passed in correction of papers case do not operate as res judicata and no finality can be attached to those orders when the matter is to be decided on merits in a regular suit or in an objection under Section 9(2) of the Act. 6. It is well settled that orders passed in correction of papers case do not operate as res judicata and no finality can be attached to those orders when the matter is to be decided on merits in a regular suit or in an objection under Section 9(2) of the Act. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Appellate and Revisional Courts have concurrently held that the aforesaid plot No. 1140M, area 2 bighas 12 biswas is Talab and be recorded as such This finding, in my opinion, does not suffer from any error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Petition dismissed).