JUDGEMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments of the High Court of Allahabad. The land in plots Nos. 6385 and 6386 measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas had been in the possession of Ram Dayal as mortgagee under Baijnath who was the original tenant. Respondents 1 to 3 are the descendants of Ram Dayal. They made an application under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 before the Consolidation Officer. They claimed tenancy rights on the basis of the deed dated July 30, 1945 and they stated that their names had been recorded in the Khatauni of 1359 Fasli; they are in cultivatory possession and have become adhivasis and subsequently sirdars. They alleged that the names of the appellants herein have been wrongly entered in the Khatauni of 1353 Fasli and that the appellants have no right or possession over the land. The respondents prayed for entering their names as sirdars and scoring off the names of the appellants.

2. This application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated July 23, 1967. The order was reversed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision filed by the respondents. However, the writ petition filed by the respondents as C.M.W.P. No. 2726 of 1970 was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated October 3, 1972 and the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities were quashed thereby maintaining the order of Consolidation Officer. Civil Appeal No. 1002 of 1976 is directed against the judgment dated October 3, 1972 of the High Court.

3. The appellants had filed a special appeal on November 30, 1972 against the judgment dated October 3, 1972 of Single Judge of the High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2726 of 1970. However, the said Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable and ultimately dismissed in view of the U.P. High Courts (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeal Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 which came into force on June 30, 1972. This completes the narration of the fate of the Writ Petition No. 2726 of 1970 which finally culminated in favour of the respondents by order dated October 3, 1972.

4. The appellants did not challenge the order of the High Court dated October 3, 1972 by taking any further steps of filing any special leave petition before this Court. On the contrary, on some mistaken and totally wrong advice of some counsel the appellants again initiated fresh proceedings by moving an application on July 6, 1973 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. That application was rejected on October 30, 1974. A revision was filed against that order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was also rejected by order dated July 21, 1975. Thereafter the appellants filed C.M.W.P. No. 9943 of 1975 before the High Court on August 7, 1975 against the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation. This writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated September 18, 1975. This judgment of the High Court is challenged in Civil Appeal No. 1003 of 1976. When the High Court in the earlier Writ Petition No. 2726 of 1970 on the same subject matter had finally decided the matter in favour of the respondents by order dated October 3, 1972, there was no question of giving any advice by any counsel in good faith to start proceedings afresh by moving a fresh application before the consolidation authorities. No counsel could have given such advice in good faith to start proceedings afresh before the consolidation authorities and then to claim benefit of such period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It was elementary for any counsel of whatever standing to have known that none of the authorities of the Settlement or Consolidation Department could have any right or jurisdiction to set aside the order of the High Court dated October 3, 1972. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as such was justified in dismissing the application by his order dated October 30, 1974, and thereafter the rev