Nandadevi Deka, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Suyash Vyash, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. The primary argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant is that he or his predecessor-in-interest is in pos- 5session of the suit land ever since it was settled in favour of Makhan Singh by the ex-landlord Rambati Kuwer. During the consolidation proceedings, the rights of the plaintiff-ap- pellant over the said land were accepted and vide order dated 12.11.1979, his name was directed to be recorded in the record-of-rights. In this way, the right and title of the plaintiff-appellant over the suit land stood crystalized. Therefore, the State of Bihar cannot in any way claim the said land and disturb his possession without following any procedure of law and payment of compensation. The appel- late courts below have manifestly erred in law in reversing the decree of the court of first instance as the judgment and order of the Consolidation Officer is final and