ORDER

1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of two writ petitions and confirmed the order passed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation functioning under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute between the parties centres round the right to remain in possession of 109 disputed plots of lands situated in Gonda District in the State of U.P. The respondents herein were the Zamindars of these lands and were admittedly recorded as Khud Kasht (in personal cultivation) of these lands in the relevant records of rights till 1947 by Entry No. 1354 Fasli. The said entry related to the year beginning from 1-7-1946 and ending on 30-6-1947. All authorities functioning under the Act concurrently held that such was the factual position till 30-6-1947. Therefore, the respondents were found to be in actual possession and being Zamindars intermediaries were personally holding these lands in their possession at least till that date. It appears that these respondents during the relevant time, immediately after partition of the country in 1947 were apprehending dispossession by the present appellants and their predecessors-in-interest. They, therefore, are said to have filed two suits under Sections 63 and 189 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 in two different courts on the same day, i.e., 14-10-1947. In the said suits it was alleged by the respondents that they were in possession and the defendants, who are the present appellants, were trying to disturb their possession. It was prayed in the alternative that during the pendency of the suits if their possession was disturbed they should be restored back the possession of these lands. It is the case of the appellants that one of the two suits which was filed in Tarabganj Court got partly decreed on 10-9-1953 whereunder the respondents suit for 7 plots mentioned in the decree was allowed and the respondents were treated to be entitled to continue in personal cultivation thereof. However, the said suit for the remaining plots of lands was dismissed presumably on the basis of subsequent entry being 1356 Fasli in favour of the appellants in the Khasra and Khatauni in the relevant records of rights concerning these lands. It is the further case of the appellants that the said decree became final. However, so far as the second suit filed before Balrampur Court is concerned, it lingered on the file of the learned trial Judge for a couple of years and ultimately it also resulted in an identical decree on 15-2-1960 whereunder a decree came to be passed partly allowing the respondents suit for the very same 7 plots and dismissing the suit for the rest. The second suit resulted in appeal on the part of the dissatisfied plaintiff-respondents in the District Court so far and the suit was dismissed for the remaining plots by the trial court. That appeal came to be dismissed. The respondents carried the matter in second appeal and at that stage, a declaration came to be issued under Section 4 of the Act and consequently, the second appeal before the High Court stood abated as laid down by Section 5(2) thereof. There is no dispute on this aspect. In view of the aforesaid abatement of the second appeal the plaintiffs grievance remained unredressed in the civil proceedings arising out of the second suit. Under these circumstances, the dispute concerning these lands had to be decided de novo under the Act. The Consolidation Officer in the first instance decided in favour of the appellants by taking the view that the appellants became entitled to remain in possession as per Section 20(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Zamindari Abolition Act") as they were recorded as occupants of these lands pursuant to the entry in the Khasra and/or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli. The aforesaid decision of