S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Notices meant for respondents 4 and 5 has been deemed to have been served by the order of this Court dated 17.2.1978. Nobody has appeared on their behalf and there is no counter affidavit. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by respondents 1 and 2 dated 18.7.1973 and 10.7.1972 (Anncxures 3 and 2 respectively).
(3.) There appears to be no dispute about certain facts and thus the facts as are clear from record may be summarized in brief for the disposal of the matter. Initially dispute related to land comprised in Khata Nos 128 and 169 situated in village Bilaspur district Rampur. Over the land of Khata No. 126 name of Ahmad Karrar (petitioner) and Waris Ahmad, respondent No. 4 was recorded. Over land of Khata No. 169 name of petitioner alone was recorded. Objection was filed by one Faiyyaz Ahmad claiming rights over plot No. 237 etc. In Khata No. 126 on the basis of adverse possession and in the meantime Tufail Ahmad, respondent No. 3 filed objection claiming 1 /4th share over the land in Khata No. 169. Petitioner claimed that name of Waris Ahmad as recorded in Khata No. 126 with the petitioner is incorrect as petitioner has been coming down in possession over the land to the exclusion of Waris Ahmad and thus on the pleading of ouster, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner he denied rights of Waris Ahmad. Consolidation Officer by judgment dated 16.5.1972 allowed petitioner's objection in respect to Khata No. 126 and directed expunction of the name of Waris Ahmad and for plot which was claimed by Faiyvaz Ahmad on the basis of adverse possession Ins claim was accepted. So far land of Khata No. 169 is concerned, petitioner was held to be sole tenure holder of the same. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer petitioner filed appeal in respect to the land of Khata No. 126 which was given to Faiyyaz Ahmad. Another appeal was filed by Tufail Ahmad claiming 1/4th sham in the land. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. whereas appeal filed by Tufail Ahmad, respondent No. 3 was allowed. Against the judgment of the appellate authority petitioner filed revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by judgment dated 18.7.73 and thus both the judgments of Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer Consolidation are under challenge.;