- (1.) HEARD Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. None appears for respondents no. 5 to 15.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the pe titioners have sought following reliefs :-"it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased : 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the opposite party no. 1 to produce the record of Revision no. 581 of 73-74 and its conected records and to quash to orders of the respondent nos. to 3 dated 13-9-1974,12-1-19: and 2/- 12-1971 respectively. 2. To issue such a writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case so that justice be done. To award cost of the petition the petitioner in the aforesaid case. " 3. Briefly stated, the petitioners ha' filed the objections under Section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that in the basic year entries, the name of the petitioner no. 1 is entered in Zaman IV and the petitioner no. 1 should be recorded as Sirdar over the land in dispute According to the case of the petitioners, the plots in dispute were originally recorded in the name of the respondent third set by the orders of A. R. O. , but the names of the respondents third set we removed from the Village records as the were shown absconding.
(3.) PETITIONERS have submitted that they were in possession of the land in dispute since 1364 Fasli as such, they fill a Suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Lal Reforms Act against the respondent the set, which was abated by the orders of the Revenue Court on 16-02-1970 after coming into force of the U. P Consolidation Holdings Act, 1971. Petitioners have filed a copy of e tract of Khasra regarding Plot no. 1 which shows that the petitioners are recorded in occupation since 1364 Fasli and regarding Plot No. 57 since 1366 Fasli;