R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.2.1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 21.12.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and 10.12.1979 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation in the proceedings under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act", with respect to Khata No. 114 of the village Birhadin, district Gorakhpur, for short "the land in dispute".
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year, the name of respondent No. 4 was recorded as chief tenant and the names of the petitioners were recorded in clause IX. The petitioners filed an objection claiming sirdari rights over the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession since 1366 Fasli before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was referred for decision before the Consolidation Officer as the reconciliation proceedings could not succeed before him. The objection of the petitioners was contested by respondent No. 4 who has pleaded that the entry of clause IX of Khasra was illegal and the same was made without any order of the competent authority and without issuing P.A. 10 to respondent No. 4 or to his father. It was also pleaded that on the relevant date respondent No. 4 was minor, therefore, the limitation will not start running till he attained the majority. Counting from the date of attaining majority, the petitioners cannot acquire sirdari rights in the land in dispute as their possession cannot be said to be in statutory period and adverse. Parties in support of their case produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after going through the material on record held that the petitioners have acquired asami right in clause VII over the land in dispute by his order dated 6.2.1975. Challenging the validity of the said order, two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation; one by the petitioners and the other by respondent No. 4. The appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 21.12.1976 while the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners, therefore, had to approach the Deputy Director of Consolidation and file a revision under section 48 of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners by his order dated 10.12.1979, hence the present petition.;