ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS , in brief, of the present case are that in respect to Khata no. 84 situated in village Shahpur Bargadwa was recorded in the name of Nankau son of Moti as Bhomidhar with transferable rights. After his death, widow of Nankau, Smt. Koila and Ram Pheran came with a case that land which belongs to Nankau may be recorded in their names. Subsequently during the consolidation proceedings , it came to their knowledge that the land in question has been recorded in the name of Jai Pattar/ opposite party no.3 as bhomidhar by way of adverse possession so an objection has been filed by the petitioners before consolidation officer , Bhinga, District Bahraich raising their grievance over the land in dispute, rejected by order dated 28.6.1985. Said order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an Appeal No. 2141 under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation , Bahraich, allowed by means of order dated 11.6.1986.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 11.6.1986, respondent no. 3 filed a revision before opposite party no.1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation,( Administration) Gonda Camp Bahraich ,allowed by an order dated 16.12.1993 . Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders dated 16.12.1993 passed by opposite party no.1 and 28.6.1985 passed by opposite party no.2 submits that the said authorities have completely ignored the facts on record that respondent no.3 was shown in possession in 1378F only on plot nos. 397/2, 605 and 606 but opposite party no.2 has wrongly confirmed the possession of opposite party no.3 on all the plots of Khata No. 84 accordingly the impugned order is contrary to facts on record, thus illegal.;