DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, J. - (1.) Heard Shri Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel.
(2.) Though caveat has been lodged on behalf of respondent no.2, however, no one is present on his behalf despite the fact that list has been revised.
(3.) The dispute in this petition relates to khasra plot nos.511 and 512 comprised in khata no.548 which, in the basic year khatauni, was recorded in the name of Ram Lal, son of Bakhtawar. On publication of proceedings under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, petitioner no.1-Jodhe, petitioner no.2-Piyare and Sukai predecessor in interest of the petitioner no.3 filed objections under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming sirdari right on the land in question on the basis of adverse possession. Various other objections were also filed both in respect of title and shares. The Consolidation Officer after considering the matter in detail and discussing the evidence available on record vide his order dated 30.01.1971 rejected the claim put forth by the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and predecessor in interest of petitioner no.3. The petitioners after a period of about 20 years preferred an appeal under section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation against the order dated 30.01.1971 passed by the Consolidation Officer. The said appeal has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation stating the reasons that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and predecessor in interest of petitioner no.3 had participated in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and had even got themselves examined as well. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation in his order dated 20.08.2013 has further observed that the Consolidation Officer after consideration of the evidence and material available on record did not accede to the claim put forth by the petitioners which was based on adverse possession. He has concluded that since the petitioners were a party before the Consolidation Officer in the proceedings under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as such they cannot plead that they did not have any knowledge of the said order dated 30.01.1971.;