K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) The petitioners have challenged the judgment of the consolidation authorities whereby their claim regarding exclusive sirdari right in the disputed land has been negatived.
(2.) It is not disputed before me that the disputed land belongs to the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 and 5 or their father Ram Chander. The petitioners claimed exclusive right on the ground that if they were sub-tenants of the disputed land, they acquired adhivasi cum-sirdari right in the disputed land and their claim has been wrongly negatived by the consolidation authorities. Alternatively they claimed sirdari right on the basis of their adverse possession over the disputed land for more than statutory period. It was not disputed before me that in the earlier litigation between the parties it was held that the petitioners being sub-tenancy of the disputed land, the decree in favour of the land holder regarding damages against the petitioners was nullity. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the finding recorded by the executing court regarding petitioners' sub-tenancy right was final and on that basis the petitioners claim regarding adhivasi and sirdari rights should have been accepted. If the claim of sub-tenancy was not accepted, the petitioner is claim on the basis of adverse and continued possession should have been accepted.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the execution court has no jurisdiction to characterise the decree in favour of the land holder as a nullity and the findings regarding sub-tenancy in execution case should not be treated as final between the parties. It has been suggested that in the instant case the petitioners cannot be sirdars of the disputed land and that the petitioners have already got half share in plot no. 653 and the claim of the petitioners is a dishonest claim, which has rightly been negatived by the consolidation authorities and in writ jurisdiction there should not be any interference with the impugned judgments. It has also been suggested that the petitioners could not acquire hereditary right in the disputed land as it was in the nature of grove since long.;