Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The question was whether the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 became Adhivasis by virtue of their being recorded as occupants in the revenue papers of 1356 F. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, answered the question in favour of the Respondents and upheld their claim. The finding was affirmed in revision. Aggrieved, the Appellants instituted a writ petition in this Court, which, however, failed. Hence, the present appeal.
(2.) Mr. Sachchidanand Sahai, learned Counsel for the Appellants, has raised the following submissions in support of the appeal: (i) The objection Under Sec. 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was barred by Order XXII Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) The finding given in the earlier suit that the entry of 1356 Fasli was fictitious operated as res judicata. (iii) The entry of 1356 Fasli must, in law, be deemed to have been corrected within meaning of Explanation 2 and 3 to Sec. 230 -A of the UP ZA and LR Act. (iv) In view of the first explanation to Sec. 230 -A, the Respondents had no right to restoration of possession and so, their objection was not maintainable.
(3.) In order to appreciate these submissions, the material and relevant facts may be mentioned.;