JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S., Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 31-7-1978 passed by Sri V.S. Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, reversing the order and decree dated 22-2-1978 passed by Sri Jaipal Singh, ASDO, Karwi-mau District Banda, in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Badri (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defendants Ganga Prasad, Banwari Lal, Daya Ram, Madho Prasad and Beni Madho, impleading the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha as necessary parties, for the declaration of sirdari rights over plot No. 518 area 14-14-0 situate in village Chilla Mafi, pargana Karwi District Banda. The plaintiff's case is that he is sirdar of the land in suit and has been in possession since before the abolition of zamindari, that he had taken forcible possession from the father of the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 and has acquired sirdari rights from 30-10-1954, that being in cultivatory possession in 1359-F, he acquired adhivasi rights, that he was also declared sirdar by the prescribed authority/SDO in respect of the land in dispute in ceiling proceedings, that the rights of the defendants 3 to 7 have been extinguished. The cause of action arose because his name was not recorded as sirdar in the relevant revenue papers. 3. The State filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff. However, the Gaon Sabha did not turn up to contest the case. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 3 to 7. They denied the allegations. Their case is that it was decided in the ceiling proceedings that the land in dispute was sir of their father Ram Kishan and after his death, they are in possession over the land in dispute as bhumidhar. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is the sirdar of the land in dispute? 2. Whether the defendants are bhumidhars of the land in dispute? After hearing the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as sirdar. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is the sirdar of the land in dispute? 2. Whether the defendants are bhumidhars of the land in dispute? After hearing the parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as sirdar. The learned trial courts findings were reversed in appeal by the learned Additional Commissioner holding that no sirdari right could be given on the entries of adverse possession in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1357, 1358 and 1359-F and the orders of the prescribed authority cannot be binding on the defendants as they were not parties to the objection filed under Section 14(4) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. He has also not found the entries of adverse possession made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant in the year 1357, 1358 and 1359-F as genuine and held that mere a tresspasser of 1359-F cannot acquire adhivasi and sirdari rights. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Ratan Singh learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellants was declared sirdar by the prescribed authority and in pursuance of his order, the appellant's name was recorded in the khataunis 1378-80-F. But not further entry was made in the khataunis of the subsequent years. He has referred to the findings of the learned trial court and stated that the trial court has held that the verdict given by the prescribed authority is binding and operates as res-judicata inasmuch as Ram Kishan, the father of the defendants was a party to the ceiling proceedings. Another argument advanced by him is that once the land is excluded and declared as surplus, it could not come in the name of Ram Kishan or his sons. Relying on 1978 AWC 67 , the learned counsel has contended that the prescribed authority is well within his jurisdiction to make such declaration and the decision given by him is binding on the courts. Relying on 1978 AWC 393 , he has submitted that the order of the prescribed authority shall be final and conclusive and not to be questioned in any court of law. Relying on 1986 RD 203, he has further contended that even an ex-parte order operates as res-judicata. 5. Relying on 1978 AWC 393 , he has submitted that the order of the prescribed authority shall be final and conclusive and not to be questioned in any court of law. Relying on 1986 RD 203, he has further contended that even an ex-parte order operates as res-judicata. 5. Sri Hari Shanker, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once a piece of land is declared as surplus under the Ceilings Act, no question of possession arises. After the land is declared surplus, the function of the prescribed authority ceases and the district collector takes charge of the surplus land and as such the prescribed authority has no authority to make any declaration of title. Another submission made before me is that since no other party was impleaded, the order of the prescribed authority cannot be binding on the defendant respondents and the order of the prescribed authority will never operate as res-judicata. On the point of right of adhivasi, he relied on 1968 RD 152 and submitted that a person who claims status of an adhivasi must establish that he was in cultivatory possession in 1359-F. A trespasser who has no right to be in possession by merely entering upon the land forcibly or surreptitiously cannot be said to be a person in cultivatory possession within the meaning of Section 3 of U.P. Act 31 of 1952. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. A reference of two judgments given by the prescribed authority has been repeatedly made by both the learned counsel. Let us see what the judgments contain. Paper No. 40-A is a copy of the judgment dated 31-3-1964 passed by Sri Binda Prasad, prescribed authority/SDO Baberu Naraini-II under Section 10(2) of the UPCLH Act. The case was fought between the State and Ram Kishan. By means of this judgment, the prescribed authority declared two plots viz. 518/14-14-0 and 560M/5-15-0 as surplus. Proceedings under Section 14(3) of the UPCLH Act, 1960 were initiated on the objection of the appellant Badri who felt aggrieved and filed the objection alleging that he was in possession over the plot in dispute since before the abolition of zamindari and was sirdar and that the disputed land was wrongly declared as surplus area. Proceedings under Section 14(3) of the UPCLH Act, 1960 were initiated on the objection of the appellant Badri who felt aggrieved and filed the objection alleging that he was in possession over the plot in dispute since before the abolition of zamindari and was sirdar and that the disputed land was wrongly declared as surplus area. Sri PN Misra, prescribed authority found the appellant in possession in 1359-F with adhivasi right and by means of his judgment dated 17-11-1969 (paper No. 39-A) he declared him sirdar of plot No. 518/14-14-0 and excluded the lot from the list of surplus land of the tenure holder, Ram Kishan. 7. Now, the question for consideration is whether a prescribed authority can give such declaration under the Ceilings Act and whether such verdict shall be binding on the subsequent proceedings. A Full Bench consisting of Satish Chandra CJ and Yashodanandan and KN Singh JJ of the Allahabad High Court, reported in 1978 AWC 67 7, has examined in details the various aspects of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961 and held that a person who claims rights in land as a tenure holder must get his rights settled under the Ceiling Act. He is not to wait for adjudication of his rights either in the civil or revenue courts or in consolidation proceedings. Their lordships have further held that a decision given by a ceiling authority would be binding on the parties even in consolidation proceedings. Consolidation proceedings respect final declaration of rights done by other courts or authorities. However, they have sounded a word of caution by observing that the persons who allege to be in adverse possession will have to satisfy the prescribed authority that they did not hold the land ostensibly in the name of the original tenure holder or that he has lost rights by their adverse possession for the requisite period. In such a case, the original tenure holder will implead those who claim right by virtue of adverse possession, to his objection in the ceiling proceedings, and the prescribed authority will have to decide the point and his decision alone will be the final adjudication of rights of all of them inter-se. Their Lordships have further held that under the Ceiling Act persons claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession are also entitled to file objections. Their Lordships have further held that under the Ceiling Act persons claiming acquisition of title by adverse possession are also entitled to file objections. The adjudication between them and the original tenure holder in ceiling proceedings having become final will operate as res-judicata under the general doctrine, in relation to consolidation authorities. They will be bound to respect the decision of the ceiling authorities. 8. The question was further agitated before a Division Bench consisting of Honble Satish Chandra CJ and R.M. Sahai J. of the Alld. High Court in Dilbagh Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 1978 AWC 393 . Dealing with the objections by the tenure holder, their Lordships held that Section 11(2) permits tenure holders to file objections. Such tenure holders may be those who have been served with a notice and the statement under Section 10(2). It also includes tenure holders who have not been given or served with any such notice or statement. As regards possession, they have observed that Section 14 authorises the collector to take possession of the land which have been declared surplus. The surplus land vests in Government front the date the collector takes possession. In view of the scheme as discussed above, a tenure holder in possession cannot be evicted till his objection under Section. 11(2) is pending adjudication. Till then the declaration of surplus land cannot become final as against him. 9. It is abundently clear from the case laws cited above that even a person claiming title on the basis of adverse possession can file objection, a tenure holder in possession cannot be evicted till his objection is pending adjudication and the orders passed by the prescribed authority will operate as res-judicata and shall be respected by all the courts including the consolidation courts. In the instant case, the plaintiff-appellant has already been declared sirdar of the plot in dispute which was excluded from the surplus land of the tenure holder. The verdict given by the prescribed authority is, therefore, not open to question, much less by the defendant who have nothing to do with the land declared surplus. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly observed that had the original order in the original ceiling case been acted upon, the land in suit would have vested in the State. The verdict given by the prescribed authority is, therefore, not open to question, much less by the defendant who have nothing to do with the land declared surplus. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly observed that had the original order in the original ceiling case been acted upon, the land in suit would have vested in the State. This declaration howsoever erroneous, is binding and an enquiry whether the appellant had actually and legally acquired adhivasi rights in view of the Division Bench Ruling given by the Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram, reported in 1968 RD 151, is not at all necessary. 10. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside.