R.S.Singh, J. - (1.) This petition has been directed against the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation dated 28-6-1978 allowing the revision filed by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents).
(2.) The dispute between the parties is confined only to plot No. 2748 in this petition. In the basic year Khatauni Chhotkan was recorded as tenure-holder on this plot as well as on other plots which are not in dispute. An objection was filed by the petitioner in respect of the plot in dispute claiming sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. Another objection was filed by the respondents claiming to be the tenure-holders over the disputed plot and also other plots recorded in the name of Chhotkan in the basic year Khatauni. Their objection was based on the fact that they are the grandsons of Chhotkan and therefore, they are tenure-holders of all the plots which were recorded in his name. The petitioner is not in possession over the plot in dispute. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The Consolidation Officer directed that the name of the respondents be recorded as tenure-holders on all the plots which were recorded in the name of Chhotkan in the basic year khatauni except over the plot in dispute which was directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner as sirdar. An appeal was filed by the respondents against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). A revision was filed by the respondents against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had not matured any right on the basis of the adverse possession. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation before this Court.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have recorded a finding in favour of the petitioner that she was in possession from 1370 Fasli and had matured title before the commencement of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, but the Assistant Director of Consolidation has illegally reversed the orders of the two subordinate authorities. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the khasras of 1370 Fasli and 1371 Fasli were prepared in accordance with the Land Record Manual. PA 10 was issued and all other formalities were complied with. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the entries of 1370 Fasli and 1371 Fasli were rightly rejected by the Assistant Director of Consolidation on the finding that no P. A. 10 was issued for the year 1370 Fasli. P. A. 10 was also not signed by the Pradhan and was not served on the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that according to the evidence of the husband of the petitioner he was in possession on behalf of his wife, the petitioner, who was a pardanshin lady, and, therefore, no right could accrue in favour of the petitioner who was not in actual physical possession over the land in dispute.;