JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging orders passed by consolidation authorities rejecting the claim of Petitioner in respect of plot Nos. 386 and 523. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the objections u/s 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (here-in-after referred to as the Act), were filed by Ram Charittar Singh Petitioner and Ramdin Das claiming title and possession over the aforesaid plots. Petitioner for claiming his title over the plot in dispute, has relied on a decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub Divisional Officer, Phulpur, in Suit No. 1340 u/s 229-B in which he was declared bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Before Consolidation Officer Charittar Singh and Ramdjn Das filed a compromise to the effect that both may be recorded as co-tenure holders and the land in dispute is not Bhita. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 28th February, 1971, however, directed that the plots in dispute shall continue to be recorded as Bhita under Class 6. The ownership of trees however shall be of Petitioner and Ramdin Das. Aggrieved by order of the consolidation officer two appeals were filed, one appeal was filed by Ramdin Das and another appeal was filed by Ram Charittar Singh, Petitioner. Both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 28th August, 1972 by Additional Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh. The order of the consolidation officer accepting the ownership of the Petitioner over the trees was set aside and it was directed that the plots in dispute shall continue to be the property of the Gaon Sabha and, shall be recorded as Bhita. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed by order dated 5th February, 1976 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 3. I have heard Sri Murli Dhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.B. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent Gaon Sabha. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. 3. I have heard Sri Murli Dhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.B. Garg learned Counsel for the Respondent Gaon Sabha. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision of Petitioner, has declined to accept the decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed in favour of Petitioner u/s 229-B of the Act declaring him bhumidhar, on the ground that on record Khewat of 1348-F, Khasra of 1378-F and Khatauni of 1376--F and a copy of the resolution of Gaon Sabha dated October, 1967 are available. From Khewat it is not clear that the Petitioner was recorded as grove holder. In Khasra of 1374-F. the land in dispute is recorded as Bhita and there are trees on it. There is no other document in support of the title of the Petitioner except the judgment in a suit u/s 229-of the Act. It has been further said that for the resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 3rd October, 1967 admitting the claim of Petitioner in suit u/s 229-B, no prior approval of Collector or Tahsildar was obtained and in absence of which there was no authority with Gaon Sabha to enter into the compromise. As the order u/s 229-B is based on the aforesaid resolution it is illegal and Petitioner does not get any title on the basis of the same. He has confirmed the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation on these findings. Sri Murli Dhar has placed reliance on 1986 (2) RD 205 and 1985 ALJ 1244 for submission that the decree passed in a suit u/s 229-B shall be res-judicata and could not be questioned in consolidation proceedings. Sri Murlidhar has further submitted that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha was passed on 3rd October, 1967 while the suit u/s 229-B was filed by Petitioner on 27th March, 1968 Hence provisions of Rule 110-A(2) UP ZA & LR Rules (here-in-after referred to as Rules), were not applicable. The decree passed in favour of Petitioner was not based solely on the resolution of Gaon Sabha but there was other evidence which was relied on by the revenue court for decreeing that suit of the Petitioner the decree dated 8th January, 1969 passed against Petitioner became final as no appeal was filed within limitation. Village was notified for consolidation operation on 30th August, 1969. Village was notified for consolidation operation on 30th August, 1969. Sri Murlidhar has produced before me a photostat copy of the Gazette Notification dated 30th August, 1969 published in U.P. Gazette of 1970 which shows that the village Chaurakhar where the plots in dispute are situated, was notified u/s 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for consolidation operation on 30th August, 1969. 4. Sri K.B. Garg, on the other hand, has submitted that as the plot in dispute was recorded as Bhita no bhumidhari rights can accrue and the decree passed u/s 229-B has rightly been ignored which cannot become final as village was notified for consolidation. 5. I have thoroughly considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel. In my opinion, the view taken by the consolidation authorities suffers from error apparent on the face of record and cannot be sustained. As noticed earlier the decree in suit u/s 229-B was passed on 8th January, 1969. Admittedly no appeal was filed from the decree and it was allowed to become final that the Petitioner became bhumidar. The judgment of the revenue court has been filed in this writ petition as Annexure 3. The suit was contested and written statement was filed alleging that the land in suit was Bhita and property of Gaon Sabha. However the suit was decreed by revenue court as no contest was put in by the State Government and Gaon Sabha. The revenue court while recording findings on issues No. 1 and 2 discussed the evidence which may be reproduced in the judgment for better appreciation which is as under: These issues being inter related with each other are being taken up for discussion together. The Plaintiff has filed an extract of Khatauni 1373-74F in which the land in suit is recorded as Bhita. The Plaintiff has further filed a copy of resolution of Gaon Sabha Kukuri Doutpur, admitting the possession of the Plaintiff from before abolition of Zamindari as grove holder having planted neem, Dibu and other trees which are in shape of a grove. He has also filed, copies of Khasra 1374F, copy of khatauni 1369F and copy of Khewat 1348F. The copy of Khasra 1374F, shows that no less than 78 mango, 5 neem and 1 mohuwa trees, 1 gular 6 bamboo clumps and other miscellaneous trees are in plot No. 386 and other trees over plot No. 523. He has also filed, copies of Khasra 1374F, copy of khatauni 1369F and copy of Khewat 1348F. The copy of Khasra 1374F, shows that no less than 78 mango, 5 neem and 1 mohuwa trees, 1 gular 6 bamboo clumps and other miscellaneous trees are in plot No. 386 and other trees over plot No. 523. Copy of Khatauni 1359F shows that plot No. 386J area 086 is recorded in the Patti of Dalsingar Singh and Udsiraj Singh. The Plaintiff has not linked up his relationship with them. Defendant No. 1 has admitted the claim of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has examined himself and produced one witness in column as PW 2. These witnesses have affirmed the possession of the Plaintiff from before abolition of Zamindari. The Gaon Sabha has also admitted the claim of the Plaintiff. The contesting state Defendant has not produced any evidence and in view of the above discussions, I have no alternative but to hold that the Plaintiff is grove holder (Bhumidhar) of the land in suit which is in his possession. The land is not the property of Gaon Sabha is admitted by the Gaon Sabha itself in the resolution dated 3-10-1987. The two issues are answered accordingly. 6. The suit was decreed on the aforesaid finding. It was not open to the consolidation authorities to ignore the decree dated 8th January, 1969 which was allowed to become final by the Respondents. It operated as res-judicata and debarred the consolidation authorities from going behind the decree. 7. So far as the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 3rd October, 1967 is concerned, it may be noticed that the judgment of the revenue court was not based solely on this resolution but the learned Sub Divisional Officer also relied on other documentary and oral evidence for accepting the claim of Petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. In these circumstances, even if the resolution of Gaon Sabha is ignored the decree can be sustained on the basis of the other evidence. The view taken by the consolidation authorities, that the decree passed on the basis of the resolution is void and cannot be accepted, is not justified in any manner. 8. Under Rule 110-A the admission of claim or compromise OF an agreement in any suit or proceeding cannot be made without obtaining the prior permission of Assistant Collector, 1st Class or Tahsildar. 8. Under Rule 110-A the admission of claim or compromise OF an agreement in any suit or proceeding cannot be made without obtaining the prior permission of Assistant Collector, 1st Class or Tahsildar. Sri Murlidhar has submitted that the resolution was passed prior to filing of suit hence provisions of Rule 110-A(2) will not be applicable. I have considered the submission of Sri Murlidhar. The date of plaint of suit u/s 229-B has been disclosed in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and there is no doubt that the suit was filed on 27th March, 1968. Thus it is true that the resolution of Gaon Sabha was passed prior to filing of suit. However, the submission of Sri Murlidhar that the provisions of Rule 110-A will not apply, is not correct. The object behind enacting the Rule 110-A Sub-Rule (2) is to protect the property of Gaon Sabha and local authorities and to prevent the office bearers from entering into compromise and admitting the claim in respect of such property. Even if the resolution was passed before filing suit or proceedings the provisions of Rule 110-A(2) shall be attracted the moment such a compromise or admission is brought on record and is relied on for accepting claim in the suit or proceedings. If the interpretation suggested by Sri Murlidhar is accepted it shall defeat the very object behind this rule i.e. to protect the interest of local bodies and Gaon Sabha which are custodians of valuable public interest. It is well known that Gaon Sabha and local authorities are manned and run by elected representatives. They may, for many reasons, develop soft corner for any litigant and in order to benefit him, may sacrifice or ignore interest of community. The provision has been made by enacting Rule 110-A to prevent such situations. However, in the present case as the decree passed by the revenue court is not solely based on resolution of Gaon Sabha the decree could not be ignored by the consolidation authorities. 9. Another important legal aspect of the case is that the Settlement Officer Consolidation took the view that even though no appeal was filed against the decree, after notification on 30th August, 1969, the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in consolidation and suit shall be deemed to have abated. 9. Another important legal aspect of the case is that the Settlement Officer Consolidation took the view that even though no appeal was filed against the decree, after notification on 30th August, 1969, the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in consolidation and suit shall be deemed to have abated. The view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and confirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal and erroneous in law. It is amply clear from the provisions of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act that the suit or proceedings cannot abate automatically. For giving effect to the provisions contained u/s 5(2)(a) an order is required to be passed after bearing the parties, and no order could be passed without giving notice to the parties. Thus the view taken by the consolidation authorities that the suit filed by the Petitioner stood abated automatically is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be accepted. 10. For the reasons recorded, this writ petition is allowed in Part. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5th February, 1970 is hereby quashed. The revision shall stand restored before him at its original number and shall be decided by Respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.