Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) The contesting respondents were Zamindars of the land in dispute. One Khuddur was tenant of the plots in question. Khuddur died. The Zamindar is alleged to have taken possession before the enforcement of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Referms Act as Khuddur died leaving behind him no issue. The Zamindar cultivated the land and that became his Khudkasht land. After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act they claimed Bhumidhari right that the plots in question were their Khudkasht. It is not necessary to refer to various proceedings of litigation between the parties. The name of the petitioner was recorded in the basic year Khatauni as Sirdar. The contesting respondent filed objection claiming Bhumidhari rights. The matter was referred to the arbitrator under Section 12 of the U. P. consolidation of Holdings Act (as it then existed) : The claim of the petitioner was that Khuddur was tenant of the land in dispute. He had adopted the petitioner as his son. After his death he inherited the rights of Khuddur and acquired Sirdari rights. The contention of the contesting respondents was that Khuddur died leaving behind him no issue. The petitioner was not adopted son. Two questions were referred to the arbitrator. First, whether the contesting respondents are Bhumidhar of the land in dispute; and second, whether the petitioner is adopted son of Khuddur. The arbitrator gave a finding that the petitioner was not adopted son of Khuddur and the contesting respondents were Bhumidhar of the land in dispute.
(2.) The petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 389 of 1964. On behalf of the petitioner an argument was raised that the question of Sirdari could not have been referred to and decided by the arbitrator. This Court dismissed the revision with certain observations which are quoted as under : "Even if the question of Sirdari, which depended upon the applicant being the adopted son of Khuddur, could not be the reference and an award by the arbitrator, that part of the award can be separated and hence the award as far as Bhumidhari is concerned, could be acted upon."
(3.) After the decision in the said revision the matter was taken up by the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner was adopted son of Khuddur and he acquired Sirdari right's. The contesting respondents filed appeal before the Settlement Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation took view that respondents were held to be Bhumidhar and once they having been held to be Bhumidhar, further question as to whether the petitioner is adopted son does not arise. The appeal was allowed and the respondents were held Bhumidhar of the land in dispute by order of the settlement officer Consolidation dated 20th September, 1977. The petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision on 12th November, 1979.;