JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.:— The respondents Nos, 3 and 4 filed an objection u/ S. 9-A of the U.P, Consolidation of Holdings Act, contending that the names of the appellants were wrongly recorded in place of their names as sirdars with respect to the land in question. In view of the subsequent amendment in the law the respondents claimed the rights of Bhumidhars. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection and the respondents filed an appeal. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation agreed with the respondents and allowed the objection. The appellants after unsuccessfully moving the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. An appeal under Chapter VIII, R. 5 of the High Court Rules was also dismissed by a Division Bench by the judgment which is the subject matter of the present civil appeal by special leave.

2. According to the case of the respondents they were the tenants and the appellants were sub-tenants under them when the Zamindari was abolished in Uttar Pradesh. As the respondent No. 3, Ram Narain, was a paralytic patient and respondent No. 4, Sheo Narain, a minor, whose father was