IMPORTANT POINT
The appellants can raise the plea before Revisional Authority that there was no evidence on record for Consolidation Officer to hold that the previous recorded tenants had abandoned the land in dispute and such finding confirmed on appeal by settlement officer was passed on no evidence although remand order of settlement officer was not put to specific challenge in separate and independent proceedings.

ORDER

This appeal is by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. A division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 2-1-1978 dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. The question of law arising therein related to the finality of an order of remand containing findings, recorded by an intermediate court during consolidation proceedings. The principles of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and those contained in Section 105 thereof were found attracted in the case.

2. Regretfully we do not have the assistance of the respondents, who even though served have not put in appearance. They are therefore proceeded against ex-parte.

3. On May 17, 1969, a Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published in the U.P. Gazette for bringing about consolidation of holdings in the village where the land in dispute is situate. In the year in which the village came under consolidation (Known as the basic year), the appellants were recorded as Bhoomidars over a holding measuring 38.25 acres and also being in its possession. The Gaon Sabha of the village filed an objection under the provisions of the Act before the Consolidation Officer alleging that the appellants were wrongly recorded as Bhoomidars over the disputed land and prayed that entries be corrected in favour of the Gaon Sabha. The appellants contested the objections before the Consolidation Officer. Their case was that the land in dispute was under the tenancy of some people when the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act was in force. The same did not vest in Gaon Sabha as unoccupied land. The Ashudhi Tehsildar during the correction of the records operation found Gurbux Singh and Harbhajan Singh in possession of the land in dispute and ordered them to be recorded as Seerdars by order dated 25.7.1957. On the basis of such corrected records Gurbux Singh and Harbhajan Singh obtained Bhoomidari rights under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1952. On 1.6.1959, those Bhoomidars sold the land to the appellants and thereafter the names of the appellants as Bhoomidars were recorded in the revenue records, continuously till consolidation operations commenced.

4. The Consolidation Officer sustained the objection of the Gaon Sabha by his order dated 21.2.1970 ordering expunction of the names of the appellants from the revenue records. The appellants appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was allowed on 22.8.1970. A remand was effected to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision, after giving an opportunity to the appellants to prove that they had even acquired ownership rights by adverse possession. On the ground of the appellants being owners by purchase the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) observed that the disputed land had vested in the Gaon Sabha, as apparently the tenants had abandoned the land without creating any rights in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the appellants and sequally none in favour of the appellants. On remand the Consolidation Officer again allowed the objection of the Gaon Sabha on 31.1.1971. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed their appeal on 20.3.1976. The appellants filed a revision petition under Section 48 of the Act before the Assistant Director (Consolidation). The appellants raised the plea before the Assistant Director (Consolidation) that there was no evidence on record to hold that the previous recorded tenants had abandoned the land in dispute and such findings recorded by the Settlement Officer was passed on no evidence. The Assistant Director (Consolidation) did not entertain the plea and dismissed the revision petition, whereupon the appellants were constrained to move the High Court in writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge, before whom the writ petition was placed referred the writ petition to a division bench as in his opinion the law needed to be straightened as to whether the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in its remand o