Ram Lal Gulati, J. - (1.) The case giving rise to this Special Appeal has had a chequered history. The appellants, who are three in number, are real brothers. They filed a suit u/S. 232 of the UP ZA and LR Act on December 28, 1954 against respondent Nos. 4 to 18 (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents) for the recovery of possession of the land in dispute on the allegation that they were the recorded occupants of the same in 1356 Fasli and had thus acquired adhivasi rights, but had been forcibly dispossessed. The suit was originally decreed ex parte, but the ex parte decree was subsequently set aside and the suit was thereafter dismissed on the merits. The appellants then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra Range, Agra, who remanded the same for a retrial holding that the contesting respondents were to establish that there was a voluntary surrender of the disputed land by the appellants and as the issue of voluntary surrender had been deleted, the appellants had been prejudiced in their case. The contesting respondents then applied in revision to the Board of Revenue. During the pendency of this revision, the village in which the disputed land is situated came under the consolidation operations.
(2.) It appears that the land in dispute was previously the sir and khudkasht of a Zamindar by the name of Kashi Prasad. According to the case of the contesting respondents, there was a voluntary surrender of the land by the appellants, whereafter fresh leases were granted by the zamindar to them and the land came in their cultivatory possession. On the basis of these leases the names of the contesting respondents were recorded in 1359 fasli.
(3.) During the consolidation proceedings the appellants filed an objection u/S. 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer praying that the appellants be declared sirdars and the names of the respondents be expunged. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the appellants. Thereafter the appellants preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated March 30, 1961 dismissed the appeal. The appellants then preferred a second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who held that so far as the statement of the appellants surrendering the rights in proceedings for correction of paper were concerned, they were neither in the form of a compromise before the court nor were made on oath and as such no importance could be attached to them. However, he dismissed the appeal on the ground that the suit filed by the appellants in the lower court for possession was time -barred and as such the appellants had lost their right. The appellants then applied in revision before the Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated September 13, 1961 allowed the same holding that the suit was within time. He, however, remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision. When the matter came before the Consolidation Officer on remand, he once again dismissed the objection holding that the appellants had surrendered the land on their own accord and their suit for recovery of possession was barred by time. He further held that the entries of 1356 Fasli were wrong. The appellants once again filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who by his order dated May 14, 1962 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer holding that the alleged surrender by the appellants in Panchayati Adalat was no surrender according to law and was not even a compromise and that the suit for regaining the possession filed by the appellants was within time. He accordingly allowed the appeal and declared the appellants to be the sirdars. The contesting respondents then filed a second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by his order dated July 31, 1962, dismissed the same. It appears that the question as to whether there was voluntary surrender or not was not raised before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The contesting respondents then applied in revision to the Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated September 4, 1962, allowed the revision and ordered that the names of the contesting respondents be entered as sirdars. Thereupon the appellants filed a writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution which has been dismissed by brother Dwivedi. Hence this Special Appeal.;