JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Jokhan Prasad, for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 30.09.1971, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 30.11.2006 and 23.09.2013 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 20.01.2016, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot 699/1 (area 1-6-10 bigha) of village Antahiya, pargana Arail, district Allahabad, which was recorded in khata 71 in name of Bhagwat Prasad son of Pratap Narain, in basic consolidation year. Mata Bhikh (now represented by respondents-4 to 11) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) filed an objection, claiming bhumidhari right over disputed land on the basis of sale deed dated 08.02.1966 executed by Bhagwat Prasad in his favour. Shitladeen, Jagpat and Lakhpat (now represented by the petitioners) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed another objection claiming sirdari right over it, on the basis of adverse possession. They took plea that Pratap Narain executed a patta dated 28.06.1953 of disputed land in their favour and gave possession over it. Since then they were in continuous possession of it and matured their right by adverse possession. They also contested the objection of the respondents on the ground that disputed land was sirdari land at the time of sale deed dated 08.02.1966 as such Bhagwat Prasad had no transferable right and sale deed was void. 4. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 30.09.1971, held that alleged patta dated 28.06.1953, set up by the petitioners was an unregistered document. Under this patta, the petitioners were required to pay Rs. 40/- per year as rent to recorded tenure holder but the petitioners could not adduce any evidence to show that rent was ever paid. The petitioners were recorded in possession of disputed land in revenue record for the first time, in khasra 1371 F, without following procedure under U.P. Land Record Manual as such this khasra has no evidenciary value in order to prove possession of the petitioner. They could not prove their possession over disputed land by any other evidence on record. It appears that patta was fabricated subsequent to sale deed dated 08.02.1966. Bhagwat Prasad deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidhari certificate of disputed land on 08.02.1966 and executed sale deed on that very day in favour of the respondent. They could not prove their possession over disputed land by any other evidence on record. It appears that patta was fabricated subsequent to sale deed dated 08.02.1966. Bhagwat Prasad deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidhari certificate of disputed land on 08.02.1966 and executed sale deed on that very day in favour of the respondent. Bhumidhari certificate was issued of disputed land, by Bhumidhari Certificate No. 13379 dated 01.02.1971. Mata Bhikh filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 2/61/328) under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, for ejectment of the petitioners, on 23.11.1967, well within limitation, which was dismissed on 05.12.1969. Thereafter, he filed an appeal from aforesaid order. In the meantime, the village was placed under consolidation operation and the appeal along with the suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the petitioners, allowed the objection of Mata Bhikh and directed for recording his name as bhumidhar of the disputed land. 5. The petitioners filed an appeal from aforesaid order. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 08.01.1972 allowed the appeal of the petitioners, holding that they had matured their adverse possession and directed for recording their names as sirdar of the disputed land. The respondent filed a revision against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order 19.04.1972. The respondent filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4844 of 1972, against aforesaid orders. This Court, by judgment dated 08.01.1981, held that suit for ejectment of the petitioners was filed by the respondent, which was abated at the appellate stage. Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to record any findings as to whether on the date of filing of the suit, the petitioners had perfected their right by adverse possession. On these findings, writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision of the respondent afresh in accordance with law. 6. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 31.10.1983 held that from khasra 1367 F, 1368 F, 1369 F and 1370 F, it was proved that the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land. 6. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 31.10.1983 held that from khasra 1367 F, 1368 F, 1369 F and 1370 F, it was proved that the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land. Their possession was recorded for the first time in 1371 F, while suit was filed on 23.11.1967, in which possession of the petitioners was admitted since 1373 F. The suit was well within time. Patta and qabuliyat produced by the petitioners were fabricated documents. On the basis of these documents, their possession was not proved from the date of patta. He further found that requisite amount for obtaining bhumidhari certificate was deposited on the date of sale deed. On issue of bhumidhari certificate, it would relate back from the date of deposit of requisite amount. On these findings, he allowed the revision and remanded the matter to appellate court for deciding the validity of the sale deed dated 08.02.1966 alone. 7. The petitioners filed a writ petition (registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 527 of 1984) against aforesaid order. Writ petition was dismissed in default on 03.03.2006. Thereafter, it was restored on 07.08.2008 but again dismissed as infructuous by order dated 30.01.2009. On dismissal of the writ petition on 03.03.2006, Settlement Officer Consolidation issued notices on 17.10.2006 to the parties for hearing the appeal. He by order dated 30.11.2006, held that possession of the petitioners from date of patta over disputed land was not proved. On the basis of sale deed dated 08.02.1966, the name of the respondent was recorded by order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.09.1971. No suit has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal and maintained order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.09.1971. The order was given effect to in revenue record by Consolidation Officer on 22.09.2007. 8. The petitioners filed an application dated 02.09.2011 for recall of the orders dated 30.11.2006 and 22.09.2007. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 23.09.2013, held that he had no jurisdiction to recall the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.09.2007. The order dated 30.11.2006 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as such it is not liable to be recalled. On these findings, he rejected the recall application. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1727) against the aforesaid order. The order dated 30.11.2006 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as such it is not liable to be recalled. On these findings, he rejected the recall application. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1727) against the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision by order dated 20.01.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 9. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that notices issued by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 17.10.2006, were not personally served upon the petitioners rather service was effected through affixation of the notices on doors. This was not a due service and have been denied by the petitioners. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by order dated 30.11.2006 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, although at that time restoration application of the petitioners was pending in High Court, which was ultimately allowed on 07.08.2008 and order dated 03.03.2006, dismissing writ petition in default was recalled and writ petition was restored. Recall application and revision of the petitioners have been illegally dismissed, without considering the grounds raised in it. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.09.1971 was challenged in this appeal itself but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally held that it had become final. Mata Bhikh filed suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for ejectment of the petitioners. This suit was dismissed by Assistant Collector by order dated 05.12.1969. The appeal arising out of suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was not liable to be abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act, as held by Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Waihd Khan Vs. D.D.C. And others, 1968 RD 57 (FB). The findings of consolidation authorities that after abatement, order dated 05.12.1969 would have no effect is illegal. The order of Assistant Collector dated 05.12.1969 was final against Mata Bhikh and operates as res-judicata. The petitioners were in possession of the disputed land from the date of patta dated 28.06.1953, executed by Pratap Narain in their favour. Even if the patta is invalid, they matured their title by way of adverse possession over it. On the date of sale deed dated 08.02.1966, disputed land was sirdari land, which was not transferable. Sale deed was void. Mutation application filed by the respondent on the basis of this sale deed was dismissed on 17.05.1967. Even if the patta is invalid, they matured their title by way of adverse possession over it. On the date of sale deed dated 08.02.1966, disputed land was sirdari land, which was not transferable. Sale deed was void. Mutation application filed by the respondent on the basis of this sale deed was dismissed on 17.05.1967. In any case, possession over the dispute land could not be obtained on the basis of a void sale deed. Admittedly the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land, which compelled Mata Bhikh to file a suit for ejectment of the petitioners. Impugned orders are illegal and be set aside. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined record. Consolidation Officer recorded a findings that Bhagwat Prasad deposited requisite amount for obtaining bhumidhari certificate of disputed land on 08.02.1966 and executed sale deed on that very day in favour of the respondent. Bhumidhari certificate of disputed land was issued, by Bhumidhari Certificate No. 13379 dated 01.02.1971. On issuance of Bhumidhari certificate, it would relate back from the date of deposit of the amount under Section 137 (2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as held by Supreme Court in Deo Nandan v. Ram Saran, AIR 2000 SC 1192 . As such sale deed dated 08.02.1966 was valid. 11. So far as possession of the petitioners is concerned, Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 31.10.1983 held that from khasra 1367 F, 1368 F, 1369 F and 1370 F, it was proved that the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land. Their possession was recorded for the first time in 1371 F without following procedure under U.P. Land Records Manual as such khasra of 1371 F had no evidenciary value. The suit for their ejectment was filed on 23.11.1967, in which possession of the petitioners was admitted since 1373 F. The suit was well within time. Patta and qabuliyat produced by the petitioners were fabricated documents. On the basis of these documents, their possession was not proved from the date of patta. Although the petitioners took plea that they had taken land on patta on rent of Rs. 40/- per year but they could not adduce any evidence to prove payment of rent. They could not adduced any other document to prove their possession. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Misc. Although the petitioners took plea that they had taken land on patta on rent of Rs. 40/- per year but they could not adduce any evidence to prove payment of rent. They could not adduced any other document to prove their possession. The petitioners challenged this order in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 527 of 1984, which was ultimately dismissed by order dated 30.01.2009. These findings against the petitioners have become final. Arguments that Writ Petition No. 527 of 1984 was dismissed as infructuous has no force. Reason of dismissal is immaterial as after dismissal of the writ petition, order and findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.1983 has become final against the petitioners. This Court is not competent to examined validity of the order dated 30.01.2009, in subsequent writ petition. 12. By order dated 31.10.1983, the matter was remanded to examine validity of the sale deed dated 08.02.1966 alone. It was a limited remand order. So far as the petitioners are concerned their right has been finally decided. Even if, after remand, notices issued by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 17.10.2006 were not served upon the petitioners, no prejudice has been caused to them as their objection on the basis of adverse possession has been finally decided by order dated 31.10.1983. On this ground also no interference is required by this Court. 13. The arguments that abatement of appeal arising out of the suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was illegal and contrary to Full Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Whid Khan's case (supra), is also irrelevant in as much as order of abatement has not been challenged before this Court. It is a fact that the appeal of the respondent along with suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter the matter was litigated before consolidation authorities between the parties. After abatement, judgment of Assistant Collector dated 05.12.1969 has become nonest and no reliance can be placed upon it as held by Supreme Court in Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh, AIR 1968 SC 714 , Mool Chand Vs. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1995 SC 2493 and Paras Nath Rai Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 1010 . 14. After abatement, judgment of Assistant Collector dated 05.12.1969 has become nonest and no reliance can be placed upon it as held by Supreme Court in Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh, AIR 1968 SC 714 , Mool Chand Vs. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1995 SC 2493 and Paras Nath Rai Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2013 SC 1010 . 14. This issue that as to whether suit for ejectment filed under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 would abate under Section 5 (2) of the Act, came for consideration before Supreme Court in Ram Adhar Singh Vs. Ramroop Singh, AIR 1968 SC 714 . A bench of three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court held that the various provisions, contained in the Act, also clearly indicate that disputes, of the nature which exists between the parties in the present litigation, are all now within the jurisdiction of the authorities, constituted under the Act, to adjudicate upon. The Act itself is one, to "provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture". Section 3 defines the various expressions. "Chak" means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder, on consolidation. "Consolidation" means re-arrangement of holdings in a suit, amongst several tenure-holders, in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact. "Tenure-holder" means a bhumidhar or sardar of the land concerned, and includes an asami. Section 4 gives power to the State Government to make a declaration that a district or part thereof may be brought under consolidation operations. There is no controversy, that the notification, issued by the State Government, under this section, on October 22, 1965, takes in the area where the disputed lands are situated. We have already referred to the provisions, contained in the original as well as the amended Section 5. Sections 8 and 8-A, deal with the preparation of records, and statements, by the Consolidation Officer, and Section 9 provides for the Assistant Consolidation Officer sending notices to tenure-holders concerned, and other persons interested, showing their interests in, and liabilities, in relation to, the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides for a person, to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested, to file objections within the time specified therein, to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, disputing the correctness of the entries made in the records. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides for a person, to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent, or any other person interested, to file objections within the time specified therein, to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, disputing the correctness of the entries made in the records. One of the entries, we have already pointed out, relates to the "rights in and liabilities in relation to the land". There are provisions relating to the hearing of objections and the Assistant Consolidation Officer is deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction. Provisions have also been made for an aggrieved party to file an appeal to the Settlement Officer, and Section 11 provides that the order of the Settlement Officer is final and that it cannot be questioned in any court of law. Section 11-A provides that no question in respect of a claim to a land, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings, if they have not been raised earlier. Section 24 provides for the tenure-holder being entitled to enter into possession of the plots allotted to him. Section 28 also gives power to the Assistant Consolidation Officer, on the application of the tenure-holder, to be put in possession of the land, allotted to him. We have already referred to the fact that the expression "tenure-holder" under Section 3(11), means a bhumidhar, or sirdar of the land concerned and includes also an asami. Section 40 provides that proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities are to be deemed to be judicial proceedings. Section 48 provides for the Director of Consolidation, exercising his powers of revision, regarding cases decided, or proceedings taken, by any subordinate authority. Section 49 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or proceeding, with respect to rights in respect of lands, covered by the notification, under Section 4, or with respect to any other matters, for which a proceeding could, or ought to have been taken, under the Act. We have referred only to some of the salient provisions of the Act; and they will clearly show that the subject-matter of the dispute, between the parties in this litigation, are all matters falling for adjudication, within the purview of the authorities, constituted under the Act. We have referred only to some of the salient provisions of the Act; and they will clearly show that the subject-matter of the dispute, between the parties in this litigation, are all matters falling for adjudication, within the purview of the authorities, constituted under the Act. In fact, clause (b), of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, as it now stands, also lays down that the abatement of the proceedings, under clause (a), shall be without prejudice to the rights of persons affected, to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings, before the appropriate consolidation authorities under the Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made, thereunder. Having due regard to the nature of this litigation, and the provisions of the Act, we are satisfied that the amended Section 5 of the Act applies to these proceedings. If that is so, an order has to be passed that the suit, out of which these proceedings arise, stands abated. Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Wahid Khan's Case (supra) is under old provisions of the Act and is no longer a good law, after amendment of the Act in 1966. In any case being contrary to law laid down by Supreme Court has no binding effect. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.