VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) THE suit relates to plot No. 1077 area 0.670 hectare situate at village Jagmalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh (hereinafter re­ferred to as the plot in dispute). In the basic year records the petitioners were recorded. Objection was filed by Mohd. Iqbal/respondent No. 4 claiming that the name of the petitioners were wrongly entered into the revenue records and in fact he was the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute as such the name of the petitioners be ex­punged and his name be incorporated. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.7.1971 allowed the objections and di­rected for expunging the name of the peti­tioners and in their place recording the name of respondent No. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Offi­cer Consolidation which was allowed vide judgement dated 30th August, 1971 and the objections filed by Mohd. Iqbal were dismissed. The revision filed by Mohd. Iqbal has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 21.10.1972 and after upsetting the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consoli­dation the order of the Consolidation Offi­cer has been maintained. It is against the said judgment that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.U. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. One Mohd. Zaheer (father of re­spondent Nos. 7 to 9) was the Zamindar of plot in dispute. In 1953 he filed a suit for injunction/possession against Rajdeo/respondent No. 5 treating him to be sub­tenant. The said suit was decided in terms of compromise between the parties, accord­ing to which Rajdeo was to continue in pos­session over the plot in dispute. Thereafter it appears that Mohd. Iqbal filed suit for declaration under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ZA Act) impleading Rajdeo and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 16) claiming sirdari rights. The said suit was decided in terms of compromise in which Rajdeo was not a party. Subsequently upon application being filed by Rajdeo the compromise decree was recalled and the suit was dismissed. It was held that the Rajdeo was the sirdar. Mohd. Iqbal had filed an appeal but it appears the same was abated during consolidation. In 1964 Rajdeo obtained Bhumidhari sanad with regard to the plot in dispute after de­positing 10 times land revenue. Thereafter on 5th February, 1965, Rajdeo executed a registered sale deed in favour of the peti­tioners of the plot in dispute. Pursuant thereto the name of the petitioners were mutated and the entries continued as such. In 1968 the village was notified under sec­tion 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) where after Mohd. Iqbal/respondent No. 4 filed objections which were contested by the petitioners. It is these proceedings which give rise to the filing of the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petition­ers submitted that the Mohd. Iqbal was never recorded in the revenue records ei­ther as the Bhumidhar of the land or as Sir­dar or Adhivasi or in any status whatso­ever. Further he was never shown to be in possession in the revenue records. The only basis of his claim was a stray statement made by the Zamindar in some proceed­ings that Mohd. Iqbal was in possession. He has further submitted that Mohd. Iqbal had utterly failed to establish his right, title and interest over the plot in dispute.;