Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and Sri R.P. Singh, for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Pandey and Sri , Dharmendra Singh, for the contesting respondent-4. 2. The writ petition was filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 07.11.2009 and 28.05.2009 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.12.2012 passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 12 of village Belha, tappa Upraudh, pargana Kantit, district Mirzapur, which was recorded in the names of Jait Bahadur son of Raghunath and Vijay Bahadur son of Chandrabali. The petitioners filed an objection for recording their names also in the khata in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that they and Vijay Bahadur Singh (respondent-4) were real brothers and are co-tenure holders, having 1/6 share each in the khata in dispute. Their names were directed to be mutated over the land in dispute by the orders of Naib Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958, passed in Case Nos. 90, 91 and 92. The order dated 02.09.1958 was given effect to in the khatauni 1366-1368 F, but due to mistake of the revenue authorities, their names were not recorded in basic consolidation year khatauni. In ceiling proceeding initiated against Vijay Bahadur Singh, he filed an application dated 24.02.1976, admitting the share the petitioners, which has been accepted by the appellate authority by judgment dated 21.06.1976 and treating share of the petitioners, notice under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 was withdrawn. The petitioners were in joint possession of the land in dispute. 4. It is alleged that a compromise signed by Tilakdhari, Jait Bahadur and Chandrabali, as well as by members of Consolidation Committee, was filed before Assistant Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 30.09.1986 directed for recording the names of the petitioners over the khata in dispute, holding their 1/6 share each. Order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was given effect to in CH Form-11 and other consolidation papers and chaks were carved out on its basis. 5. Vijay Bahadur Singh (respondent-4) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 392 of 2007-08), on 23.04.2007, along with delay condonation application from the aforesaid order. It has been stated that no notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to him. 5. Vijay Bahadur Singh (respondent-4) filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 392 of 2007-08), on 23.04.2007, along with delay condonation application from the aforesaid order. It has been stated that no notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to him. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by him. The petitioners have no share in the land in dispute. In this appeal, personal service upon the petitioners could not be effected. Settlement Officer Consolidation effected service through publication and proceeded to decide the appeal exparte, who by his order dated 07.11.2009 held that although objection was filed by Vijay Raj Singh and Janardan Singh, claiming share along with Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record but the compromise was not signed either by Vijay Raj Singh and Janardan Singh or by Vijay Bahadur Singh. In stead of it, the compromise was signed by Tilakdhari Singh and Chandrabali Singh, who had no authority to sign the compromise. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Assistant Consolidation Officer 30.09.1986 was set aside and basic year entry was maintained. 6. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 07.09.2009 on the ground that order was passed ex parte without service of notice upon them. Recall application was contested by respondent-4. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 28.05.2011 rejected the recall application. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 671 of 2011-12). It is alleged that Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the parties to adduce their evidence. The petitioners filed copy of khatauni of 1366 to 1368 F, in which the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958 was mutated, questionnaire showing that record of Case Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of the court of Naib Tahsildar were weeded out, copy of the application filed by Vijay Bahadur Singh dated 24.02.1976, before Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) and orders of Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) and appellate authority dated 21.06.1976 and 20.12.1976. Respondent-4 contested the revision on the ground that the petitioners and respondent-4 were original residents of village Sumatiya, tappa Chhanbey, district Mirzapur, while the land in dispute was of village Belha, tappa Upraudh, pargana Kantit, district Mirzapur and was the property of his wife's father, who had given it to him. Respondent-4 contested the revision on the ground that the petitioners and respondent-4 were original residents of village Sumatiya, tappa Chhanbey, district Mirzapur, while the land in dispute was of village Belha, tappa Upraudh, pargana Kantit, district Mirzapur and was the property of his wife's father, who had given it to him. The petitioners, who are brothers of respondent-4 have no share in it. Respondent-4 was in military service. His father was doing pairavee on his behalf in the ceiling proceeding and filed the alleged application on his behalf. The alleged application dated 24.02.1976 was not filed by him and cannot be treated as his admission. No notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to him. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by him rather it was signed by his father Chandrabali, who had nothing to do with it. The petitioners have no share in the land in dispute. They have procured the order dated 30.09.1986 by committing fraud, which has been rightly set aside by Settlement Officer Consolidation. 7. Deputy Director of Consolidation also summoned the original khatauni of 1366 to 1368 F. After hearing the arguments of the parties, Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 22.12.2012, found that in khatauni of 1366 to 1368 F, there was an interpolation in the mutation in which the words "Brij Lal and Janardan and" were added in different ink, before the name of Vijay Bahadur. By the orders of Naib Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958, the name of Vijay Bahadur alone was directed to be recorded. On the basis of the order passed by Ceiling Authority, the petitioners cannot be given any title over the landed property as Ceiling Authority has jurisdiction to determine ceiling limit and not the title of the tenure holders. No notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by Vijay Bahadur Singh rather it was signed by his father Chandrabali, who had nothing to do with the land in dispute and had no right to enter into compromise. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by Vijay Bahadur Singh rather it was signed by his father Chandrabali, who had nothing to do with the land in dispute and had no right to enter into compromise. The compromise was not according to the provisions of Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Rules, 1954 and order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on its basis has been rightly set aside by Settlement Officer Consolidation. On these findings, the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly notices of the appeal was not personally served upon the petitioners and service was effected through publication. There being no personal service, ex parte order of Settlement Officer Consolidation ought to have been recalled. The village has already been notified under Section 52 of the Act. Chaks were carved out in the names of the petitioners. The appeal, which was filed with the delay of about 21 years, was not maintainable nor the delay was liable to be condoned. The compromise was filed by the parties in presence of the members of Consolidation Committee according to the provisions of Rule 25-A and there was no illegality in the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer. In any case, if the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside then the matter was liable to be remanded to Consolidation Officer for trail on the objection of the petitioners but respondents-1 and 2 have illegally decided the case on merit. The petitioners filed questionnaire showing that records of Case Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of the court of Naib Tahsildar were weeded out, as such, orders could not be produced. The case taken by the respondent that land in dispute was property of his father-in-law as such the petitioners could not have any share in it, is not liable to be accepted as a son-in-law is not the heir of his father-in-law under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The names of the petitioners were mutated in khatauni 1366-1368 F. Respondent-4 admitted title and possession of the petitioner in his application dated 24.02.1976 filed before Ceiling Authority. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer does not suffer from any illegality. The names of the petitioners were mutated in khatauni 1366-1368 F. Respondent-4 admitted title and possession of the petitioner in his application dated 24.02.1976 filed before Ceiling Authority. The order of Assistant Consolidation Officer does not suffer from any illegality. In view of admission of respondent-4 of title and possession of the petitioners, they were not required to file any further evidence. Burden lies upon respondent-4 to disprove his admission. The petitioners were in joint possession of the land in dispute since 1958 and their objection was liable to be allowed. 9. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondent submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation had given opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and also summoned the original khatauni from record room as such full trial was conducted by him. In basic consolidation record, the name of respondent-4 was recorded and burden lies upon the petitioners to prove their title over the land in dispute. Apart from fabrication in the mutation in khatauni 1366-1368 F, there is no other evidence to prove title and possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute. Deputy Director of Consolidation, after perusal of original khatauni held that in khatauni of 1366 to 1368 F, there was interpolation in the mutation in which the words "Brij Lal and Janardan and" were added in different ink, before the name of Vijay Bahadur. He further found that by the orders of Naib Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958, the name of Vijay Bahadur alone was directed to be recorded. The forgery is further proved from the fact that the names of the petitioners were never recorded in the revenue record thereafter. Respondent-4 came with the case that he was in military service and in the ceiling proceedings, his father was doing pairavee on his behalf. Alleged application dated 24.02.1976 was not filed by respondent-4. In any case, on the basis of the order passed by Ceiling Authority, the petitioners cannot be given any title over the landed property as Ceiling Authority has jurisdiction to determine ceiling limit and not the title of the tenure holders. In spite of the order of ceiling authority the land in dispute was recorded through out in the name of respondent-4 alone. No notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record. In spite of the order of ceiling authority the land in dispute was recorded through out in the name of respondent-4 alone. No notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by Vijay Bahadur Singh rather it was signed by his father Chandrabali, who had nothing to do with the land in dispute and had no right to enter in to compromise. The compromise was not according to the provisions of Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Rules, 1954 and order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer on its basis has been rightly set aside. The petitioners have no case and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of order of Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the parties were given opportunity to adduce their evidence and the petitioners also adduced their documentary evidence. The name of respondent-4 was recorded in basic consolidation year record and burden was upon the petitioners to prove their title. The petitioners claim their title over the land in dispute on the basis of orders of Naib-Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958, which were not be filed as the records were weeded out. Original khatauni of 1366-1368 F, in which order of Naib-Tahsildar dated 02.09.1958 was summoned by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who after perusal of it, recorded a finding that by interpolation in the mutation in different ink, words "Brij Lal and Janardan and" were added. This fact is further proved as the entry of the name of the petitioners were never repeated or recorded in subsequent khataunies. In any case, Naib Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to decide title and his order is not relevant to prove title. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhurey Vs. Pir Bux, 1974 (Supple) RD 259 (DB) and Ganga Charan Vs. DDC and others, 1997 AWC 402 held that admission in mutation proceedings are not relevant in title proceedings. Thus findings of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhurey Vs. Pir Bux, 1974 (Supple) RD 259 (DB) and Ganga Charan Vs. DDC and others, 1997 AWC 402 held that admission in mutation proceedings are not relevant in title proceedings. Thus findings of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 11. The other papers relied upon by the petitioners are the application of respondent-4 dated 24.02.1976 filed before Prescribed Authority (Ceiling) and order of District Judge dated 20.12.1976 passed on its basis. Respondent-4 came with case that he was in military service and entire pairavee on his behalf was done by his father in the ceiling proceedings. Thus, the application cannot be said to be an admission of respondent-4. In any case, only on the basis of admission, title over immovable property cannot be given. Supreme Court in Mohd. Shah Vs. Fashiuddin Ansari, AIR 1956 SC 713 , Sri Chand Vs. Inder, (1993) Supple (2) SCC 560, Avtar Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 552 , Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak, AIR 2007 SC 2577 and Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 held that only on the basis of an admission no person can be declared as owner of immovable property, which is required to be proved by positive evidence by the person claiming his title. 12. So far as the order passed by appellate authority in the ceiling proceeding is concerned Supreme Court in Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commr., Kumaon Division, (2004) 4 SCC 281 , held that Res judicata is a plea available in civil proceedings in accordance with Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to "lis" in original or appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice over. The literal meaning of res is "everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status" and res judicata literally means: "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment". The literal meaning of res is "everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status" and res judicata literally means: "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment". Section 11 CPC engrafts this doctrine with a purpose that "a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action". (See Black's Law Dictionary at pp. 1304-05.) Proceedings under the Ceiling Act are not adversarial as are proceedings in suit. The Ceiling Act is a legislation to give effect to the directive principles contained in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution. The State is advised by the directive principles contained in the Constitution to take necessary legislative measures so as to ensure social justice by equitable distribution of ownership and control of material resources and avoid concentration of wealth and means of production in a few hands. The laudable social objective sought to be achieved by the ceiling legislation is to take surplus land from the holders and distribute the same to the landless agricultural labourers and peasants surviving on agriculture. In applying the principles of res judicata, therefore, to the ceiling proceedings, the object of the Act cannot be lost sight of. All principles of res judicata contained in Section 11 CPC cannot be strictly and rigorously made applicable to ceiling proceedings. Section 38-B introduced by the Amendment Act of 1976 with the transitory provisions made both in Amendment Act 18 of 1973 and Act 20 of 1976 is a departure from the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and indicates non-applicability of bar of res judicata in ceiling proceedings under the Act. Plea of res judicata is also not available where there is no contest on an issue between the parties and there is no conscious adjudication of an issue. Plea of res judicata is also not available where there is no contest on an issue between the parties and there is no conscious adjudication of an issue. In the original order dated 11-8-1967 of the prescribed authority passed under the unamended Ceiling Act, the school land to the extent of 250 acres, under an obvious mistake, was treated to be land held, not by the holder Company but by the school treating the latter to be a separate legal entity. It was never the case of the holder Company or the Farm that 250 acres of land was held not by the Company but by the school as a separate legal entity. Their claim with regard to the school land was for exemption under clause (ix) of Section 6, as it stood prior to the Act of 1973. The Company was claiming exemption for 250 acres of land being the land held by the holder Company for educational purposes and such claim for exemption could be laid on behalf of the Company in accordance with clause (ix) of Section 6, as it stood in the original Amendment Act. The prescribed authority, it appears, by an inadvertent mistake, instead of considering the claim of the holder Company for exemption of land under clause (ix) of Section 6, as it stood then, excluded the land as belonging to the school as separate legal entity. This exclusion of 250 acres of land of the school from the extent of holding of the holder Company was not a decision or a finding on an issue arising between the parties but it was a clear mistake which is apparent from the fact that this land was throughout treated by the holder Company as its own land and was transferred by the Company by different sale deeds to seventy-five persons after the cut-off date of 24-1-1971. On the date of second ceiling introduced by the Amendment Act of 1973, the so-called land belonging to the school is claimed to be held by the holder Company as the Company had transferred it to various persons. On these admitted facts and nature of title of the land, plea of res judicata cannot be allowed to be raised. The case initiated and proceeded with in ceiling law is not an adversarial litigation between the State and the landowners. On these admitted facts and nature of title of the land, plea of res judicata cannot be allowed to be raised. The case initiated and proceeded with in ceiling law is not an adversarial litigation between the State and the landowners. It is enforcement of a social welfare legislation enacted in accordance with the directive principles of State policy enshrined in Article 39 of the Constitution. 13. If a judgment does not operate as res-judicata, it is irrelevant under Section 43 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In any case, respondent-4 came with the case that his father was doing pairavee in the ceiling proceeding as such the application was moved by him is also a relevant fact. The fact that Chandrabali, father of respondent-4 filed compromise before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 30.09.1986 corroborate that father of respondent-4 was doing pairavee on his behalf. In such circumstance, title of the petitioners over the disputed land is not proved either by the application dated 24.02.1976 or by the order of appellate authority dated 20.12.1976. 14. The findings of respondents-1 and 2 that no notice was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer to Vijay Bahadur Singh, whose name was recorded in basic consolidation year record and the compromise was neither signed by the petitioners nor by respondent-4, could not be challenged by the petitioners. Assistant Consolidation Officer illegally directed for recording the names of the petitioners on the basis of compromise, which was not signed by Vijay Bahadur Singh rather it was signed by his father Chandrabali, who had nothing to do with the land in dispute and had no right to enter into compromise and the compromise was not according to the provisions of Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings Rules, 1954, could not be challenged by the petitioners. The entire proceedings before Assistant Consolidation Officer was exparte as such Settlement Officer Consolidation has not committed any illegality in condoning the delay in filing the appeal and allowing the appeal. The petitioners could not prove their title over the land in dispute as such there was no justification for remand of the matter to Consolidation Officer for trial. 15. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners that after notification under Section 52 of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable, is not accepted. The petitioners could not prove their title over the land in dispute as such there was no justification for remand of the matter to Consolidation Officer for trial. 15. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners that after notification under Section 52 of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable, is not accepted. A Division Bench of this Court in Gopinath vs. DDC and Others, 1967 RD 214 (D.B.) and Ram Bahadur vs. DDC and Others, 1974 RD 53 (D.B.), held that if cause of action arose during consolidation operation, then appeal, revision or restoration application can be filed even after notification under Section 52 of the Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the orders of respondents-1 and 2 do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. _________________