Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The disputed land stood recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 in the basic year. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was preferred by opposite party No. 3 claiming that it be entered in his name as he had perfected his title to it by adverse possession. His objection was allowed on September 28, 1965. The petitioners went in appeal which was allowed on January 3, 1966. Opposite party No. 3 then preferred a revision which was allowed on August 3, 1966. The petitioners challenge the validity of the order passed in revision on two grounds : Firstly, they maintain that in view of the confirmation made under Section 23 of the Act on October 30, 1965 the revision should have been dismissed as infructuous. Secondly, it is urged that the finding of fact arrived at in the impugned order proceeds on incorrect statement of facts and as such deserves to be quashed. Accordingly it is prayed that the impugned order dated August 3, 1966, passed in revision, a certified copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition, be quashed.
(2.) The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 3.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged the two grounds stated above. I see no substance in the first ground. As already indicated confirmation was made on September 30, 1965 whereas the order of the Consolidation Officer upholding the objection of opposite party No. 3 was passed on September 28, 1965. In view of the order of the September 28, 1965, confirmation had to conform to it. In other words, it should have been in the name of opposite party No. 3 and not in the name of the petitioners. If the confirmation was wrongly made in the name of the petitioners then certainly it could be rectified and on that score the revision preferred by opposite party No. 3 and disposed of by the impugned order could not be held to have become infructuous.;