JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J.:— What is more difficult, regaining of possession of agricultural lands to which they had undisputed right, or passing through the eye of a needle, is the question the appellants may well ask in desperation. They may well add that while in theory for every right there maybe a remedy in practice such tenants have no remedy if the interpretation of the scheme of the provisions of the Consolidation Act (East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948.) made by the High Court is upheld. The original appellants, the tillers of the lands who have failed to regain possession for a quarter century after the Consolidation Officer upheld their claim in 1960, having died during the pendency of these appeals instituted 15 years back without reaping the fruits of the order in their favour (now represented by their heirs) may well be justified in saying so. For, notwithstanding the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer in his order dated April 28, 1960 that the original appellants were in possession of these lands as non-occupancy tenants prior to consolidation in the course of which the concerned land-owner was allotted parcels