R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) In appeal arising out of objection filed u/s 9-A 1.2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by petitioner it was found that Chhingur ancestor of petitioners was recorded occupant in 1357 fasli therefore he acquired adhivasi rights u/s 20 of U.P.Z.A. Act 1 of 1951 and became sirdar u/s 240-G. Two other important findings were about possession and failure of opposite parties to agitate their claim in Section 240 proceedings. It was held that Chhingur was in possession since 1357 fasli. He was entered as sirdar from 1363 to 1366 fasli and 1366 to 1368 fasli although in the extract of 1366 to 1368 fasli it was mentioned that name of opposite party was entered during correction of land records drive. But this did make any difference as although petitioners name was not entered but irrigation slips of 1371 and 1372 fasli established petitioners possession. Revenue entries and irrigation slips were found supported by oral evidence of one Gokul. None of these findings were set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation. But he found possession of petitioners after 1366 F was upheld on insufficient evidence. According to Deputy Director petitioners failed to prove their possession after 1366 fasli.
(2.) Although the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation is very brief but that by itself could not have been a ground to quash the order. Unfortunately for opposite party as a final authority on fact he was expected to examine the material carefully to find out it the order of appellate authority suffered from any illegality or impropriety. But the order is not only sketchy but it does not satisfy the test Laid down by the court for upholding an order of reversal. Revenue entries, irrigation slips and oral evidence were undisputedly on record. All this was disbelieved because opposite party's name was recorded in correction of land record drive which even the Deputy Director found more of summary nature. No witness appears to have been examined by opposite party. Gokul's testimony which was believed by appellate authority has not been touched. How could the revising authority without considering all this set aside the appellate order.
(3.) Even assuming that there was no evidence of possession after 1366 fasli, how could petitioner's right be deemed to have extinguished. 1366 fasli is equal to 1958-59. If what has been said by Deputy Director is believed then petitioners must have been dispossessed in 1367 fasli (1959-60). And the limitation to file the suit would have started running from July 1961. It would have expired on 30 June 1967. But consolidation was enforced in 1966. Even the dispossession is taken in 1366 fasli and limitation is counted from July 1960 it will have to be found but whether limitation to file suit has expired.;