Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) The dispute in the present case relates to Khata No. 257 which was recorded in the name of respondent No. 2 in the basic year. Two sets of objection were filed under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'); one by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to plot No. 469 and other by petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 with regard to plot No. 465 of the disputed Khata on the ground that the said plots are in their possession since before the abolition of Zamindari and their rights were acknowledged in a compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the father of respondent No. 2 in a suit for injunction. The claim of the petitioners was accepted by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 18.6.1964 allowed the revision and remanded the case back to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding it afresh after recording a finding on the question of possession.
(2.) I have heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mohd. Akram appearing for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
(3.) The claim of respondent No. 2 was that he was declared adivasi and thereafter, sirdar. However, on an analysis of the documentary evidence brought on record, the Consolidation Officer found that there was no entry of possession of respondent No. 2 in khasra of 1356 and 1359 fasli as such he could not have become adivasi and thus disbelieved the entry of sirdar in his favour. On the contrary he found that the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute.;