- (1.) The petitioners pray to quash different orders passed by the Consolidation authorities. The Facts:-
(2.) The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass:- There appears to be a dispute between the petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5 concerning right, title, interest and possession over plot Nos. 1281 / 1 and 1287 / 2 of village Dhadha Chanwar in the District of Azamgarh (which both sides state that now it is part of the District Mau). The petitioners filed a suit for ejectment of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from the lands in question which was decreed by the trial Court, but the decree for ejectment could not be executed by the petitioners because of an order of stay passed under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Appellate Court. The Revisional Authority rejected the claim of the petitioners on the grounds, inter alia that since the petitioners could not execute the decree their claim is not tenable. The Submissions:-
(3.) Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended as follows:- (i) Since further proceedings in the execution case filed for effecting delivery of possession pursuant to the decree of eviction was stayed on appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the Revisional authority was not justified in law in drawing an inference against the petitioner on that ground, (ii) The authorities have also failed to appreciate that after passing of the order of abatement of the suit, the finding either recorded in favour of the petitioners or in favour of the Respondents in the appeals arising therefrom (the suit at one stage has reached up to the Board of Revenue in 2nd Appeal and was remitted back to the Ist Appellate Court for fresh disposal) became non est and the consolidation authorities have erred in recording their findings against the petitioners on the basis of the observation/ findings recorded in the appeals, (iii) The claim of the other side in regard to the land in question was founded on the basis of long possession which in law does not constitute adverse possession. Their claim has been erroneously upheld holding that they have acquired title by adverse possession despite the fact that there was no pleading set forth by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 regarding acquisition of title adverse possession, nor had they adduced evidence to support adverse possession.;