JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 5.112005 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur District Gonda, in Suit No. 91/272 under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1950') deciding issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 thereof which were as under: "2. Whether the suit was barred by section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953? If so, its effect 3. Whether suit was barred by res judicata? If so, its effect, 4. Whether the suit has been preferred on false and incorrect facts on account of which it was not maintainable? If so, its effect." 2. The land in question was purchased by the opposite party No. 3 during consolidation operation as claimed and, based thereon an application was filed under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953'), which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 22.1.1980 in the absence of the applicant-plaintiff but in the prese (sic) earlier, which once of the defendant in the said suit who is the petitioner herein and as no restoration application was filed during the Consolidation operations or after its closure, therefore, the issue was whether after its closure, the suit under section 229-B in respect of the same land in question based on the same sale deed was barred by section 49 of the Act 1953 and res-judicata. 3. The S.D.M. decided the issues in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff who is the opposite party herein by saying that the proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953 and 34 of the Act 1901 are similar and both of them are summary proceedings, moreover, section 11 C.P.C. containing provisions based on principle of res-judicata are applicable only when a matter is decided after framing of issues as is evident from section 4 C.P.C. and as in the summary proceedings under section 12 neither the issues were framed nor were decided finally, therefore, the bar of section 11 C.P.C. was not applicable and the principles of res-judicata was also not applicable. As far as the bar of section 49 is concerned, the S.D.M. opined that that sale deed had been executed after the provisional consolidation scheme, therefore, the bar of section 49 would not apply. 4. Shri R.P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the private opposite parties has tried to sustain the order on the strength of the reasoning given therein. 5. At this stage, it is not out of place to mention that against the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a Revision under section 333 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act of 1950 which was dismissed on the ground that it was filed against an interlocutory order as such the same was not maintainable. 6. Considering the fact that this Petition is pending before this Court since 2006 and also in view of the issue involved which is purely legal, this Court need not go into this question as to whether the Revision was maintainable or not and proceeds to consider the validity of the order dated 5.11.2005. 7. This Court is of the view that the reasoning given by the S.D.M. is not correct in the eyes of law. The finding of the S.D.M. with regard to issue No. 2 is not sustainable. The fact appears to be that the sale deed was executed during consolidation operation after the publication under section 10(1), therefore, even if, the stage of section 9-A(2) had passed and the sale deed had been executed, thereafter proceedings under section 12 were maintainable and were availed, therefore, the question of bar of section 49 in the context of the subsequent suit under section 229-B of the Act, 1950 allegedly based on the same sale deed involving the same issues was a plea which ought to have been considered accordingly in the light of the decisions on the subject which has not been done, instead, the S.D.M. went on a tangent that the bar was not attracted as the sale deed had been purchased after the provisional scheme was over, as if, the rights of the parties could not be adjudicated thereafter under section 12. 8. As regards the findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4 the observations of the S.D.M. that the proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953 are similar to the proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 are absolutely untenable in law. The nature of two proceedings is very different. 8. As regards the findings on issue Nos. 3 and 4 the observations of the S.D.M. that the proceedings under section 12 of the Act 1953 are similar to the proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 are absolutely untenable in law. The nature of two proceedings is very different. The proceedings under section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 are summary proceedings wherein questions of title if they are involved, cannot be decided, nor can an order passed thereunder be treated as conclusive on questions of title. The parameters of the said proceedings are evident on a bare reading of sections 33 and 34 of the Act, 1901. Section 33 of the Act, 1901 clearly provides under sub-section 2(b) that the power to record a change shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of this Court in Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue U.P. : 2002 (93) RD 66, wherein the scope of proceedings under section 34 has been dealt with and it has been held that these are summary proceedings which do not decide title and orders passed in mutation proceedings do not come in the way of a person in getting his rights adjudicated in a regular suit. The orders passed in proceedings of mutation are subject to adjudication by competent Court in Regular Suit proceedings. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of this Court in Sahed-Jan @ Bonde v. Board of Revenue 2004 (1) RD 656, wherein similar proposition of law has been laid down. 9. Vis-a-vis. the scope of section 34 of the Act 1901, when this Court considers the provisions of section 12 of the Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953) to judge the validity of the findings recorded by the S.D.M. the Court finds that section 12 of the Act, 1953 reads as under: "12. 9. Vis-a-vis. the scope of section 34 of the Act 1901, when this Court considers the provisions of section 12 of the Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953) to judge the validity of the findings recorded by the S.D.M. the Court finds that section 12 of the Act, 1953 reads as under: "12. Decision of matters relating to changes and transactions affecting rights or interests recorded in revised records.-(1) All matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not later than the date of notification under section 52, or under sub-section (1) of section 6. (2) The provisions of sections 7 to 11 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections." 10. On a bare reading of section 12, it is evident that all matters relating to "changes and transfers' affecting any of the rights or interests recorded in the revised records published under sub-section (1) of section 10 for which a cause of action had not arisen when proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress, may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not later than the date of notification under section 52, or under sub-section (1) of section 6. The wide sweep of this provision is evident from the language used therein but more of it later. Sub-section (2) of section 12 further provides that the provisions of sections 7 to 9 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections. The wide sweep of this provision is evident from the language used therein but more of it later. Sub-section (2) of section 12 further provides that the provisions of sections 7 to 9 shall mutatis mutandis, apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) as if it were a matter raised under the aforesaid sections. In addition to the language used in sub-section (1) of section 12 which demonstrates the width of the scope of proceedings under section 12 which covers all matters relating to changes and transfers affecting any of the rights and interest recorded in the revised records published under sub-section 1 of section 10, the language used in sub-section 2 which makes section 7 to 9 applicable to proceedings under section 12, makes its amply clear that all rights and interest in lands which are the subject-matter of consolidation operations can be adjudicated in proceedings under section 12. The only caveat being that the cause of action should have arisen after publication of the revised records under sub-section 1 of section 10 and should not have arisen when proceedings under sections 7 to 9 were started or were in progress. The language used in this provision when read conjointly with sections 7 to 9 of the Act, 1953 makes it very clear that rights and interest in a holding can be adjudicated at different stages depending as to when the cause of action had arisen. If the cause of action had arisen when the proceedings under sections 7 to 9 had started or were in progress, then, the claim to right and interest in an agricultural holding would be made under section 9-A(2), however, once the revised records are published under section 10(1) then the bar of section 11-A of the Act, 1953 comes into play in respect of such claim for which the cause of action had arisen as aforesaid i.e. prior to publication under section 10(1). If the cause of action arises subsequently i.e. after the publication under section 10(1) and did not arise earlier when the proceedings under sections 7 to 9 had started or were in progress then, the remedy lies under section 12, therefore, for the S.D.M. to say that the proceedings under section 12 are summary proceedings is based on a misconception as if, the said proceedings are only for the purposes of mutation. The proceedings under section 12 are not only for mutation of names but also for determination and adjudication of rights and interests in holdings as stated herein above which is not permissible under section 34 of the Act, 1901. 11. The legal position in this regard is no longer res-integra. Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of this Court in Smt. Bhawan Dei v. Board of Revenue 2010 (110) RD 747, wherein the distinction between mutation proceedings under section 34 of the Act, 1901 and the proceedings under section 12 of the Act, 1953 have been dealt with at length and the legal position has been explained. Reference may also be made in this regard to the decision in Kaushtendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. 2007 (103) RD 133, wherein also the scope of section 12 has been dealt with on the same lines as discussed and explained hereinabove. On similar lines is another decision of this Court in Beni Madho v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2003 (94) RD 372 (HC). 12. In view of the aforesaid, as far as the reasoning given by the S.D.M. for deciding issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 as noticed hereinabove inter-alia based on the alleged similarity in the proceedings under section 34 of the Act, 1901 and section 12 of the Act, 1953 is concerned, the same is erroneous and untenable in law. As regards the findings on the question of res-judicata and the application of section 11 CPC the S.D.M. should have kept in kind that the principle of res-judicata applies not because of section 11 CPC but even independent of it as a principle of law, meaning thereby, in a given situation where the provisions of CPC do not apply stricto-sensu even then the principle of res-judicata including the principle of constructive res-judicata can be applied. This aspect of the matter has not been considered appropriately by the S.D.M. 13. The S.D.M. is required to reconsider these issues based on the discussion made hereinabove and the letter and spirit of section 49 of the Act, 1953 and the doctrine of constructive res-judicata as discussed and explained in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court. In fact it is the principle of constructive res-judicata which is important in the present case. In fact it is the principle of constructive res-judicata which is important in the present case. As, though there was no decision on merits by the consolidation Court, but, the fact of the matter is that proceedings were initiated by the opposite party No. 3 under section 12 of the Act 1953 herein in respect of same lands claiming rights and interest therein based on the same sale deed, which was dismissed for want of prosecution and no proceeding for its restoration was initiated by him, therefore, the effect of this dismissal was required to considered in the light of the law discussed hereinabove. The S.D.M. should consider this aspect of the matter afresh. 14. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 5.11.2005 is apparently erroneous against the provisions of law as also the pronouncements of this Court, therefore, the same is quashed. The matter is now remanded back to the S.D.M., Mankapur, District Gonda for proceeding with the suit under section 229-B by considering and deciding issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. 15. It is, however made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the merits of the issues so far as the bar under section 49 of the Act, 1953 or those based on the principles of res-judicata and constructive res-judicata is concerned. It has only been held that the reasoning given by the Court below is not sustainable which requires reconsideration. 16. As both the parties are present before this Court, they are directed to appear before the S.D.M. concerned on 4.6.2019 whereupon the S.D.M. shall proceed to decide the matter as aforesaid. The S.D.M. shall decide issues No. 2, 3 and 4 as aforesaid but with expedition, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law. 17. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.