R.B. MISRA, J. :- The present Special Appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. The dispute between the parties relates to plots Nos. 154, 171 and 177. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were the tenants of these plots. They surrendered them in favour of the land-holder Smt. Rani Chauhani on 14th July, 1943. The land-holder came in possession over the plots. On 9th December, 1944, the land-holder settled the plots with Kanchan Lal, Raghubir, Ram Kishan and Babu Ram (hereinafter to be referred to as the newly inducted tenants).

2. In 1947 the U. P. Tenancy Act of 1939 was amended by the U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (Act No. X of 1947). It was designed to give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of the zamindars. Section 27 (1) of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to tenants who had been ejected under Section 165 or Section 171 or Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 27 of U. P. Act X of 1947 gave relief to such tenants who had surrendered their plots on account of fraud, undue influence or coercion on the part of the zamindar. It was open to such tenants to apply for reinstatement within six months from the date of the enforcement of U. P. Act X of 1947.

3. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram accordingly moved an application for reinstatement under sub-section (2) of Sec. 27. They alleged that the surrender was brought about on account of coercion of the Karindas of the land-holder. Their application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 30th August, 1958. An appeal filed against the order dated 30th August, 1958 was also dismissed on 31st October, 1958. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram thereupon filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. But before the reference could be finally decided, the village, where the plots in suit are situate was brought under consolidation operations.

4. Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act) provided for the stay of all proceedings for correction of record and all suits for declaration of rights or for possession of land pending in any Court. This was, however, without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the matter in dispute before the consolidation authorities. The Board of Revenue accordingly stayed the proceeding before it in view of Section 5 of the Consolidation Act.

5. Gopal Narain and Tula Ram thereafter vindicated their rights before the consolidation authorities. They filed an objection and alleged that they were hereditary tenants of the plots under Section 16 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The agents of the land-holder, by coercion, obtained surrender of the plots. They were entitled to reinstatement in view of Section 27 of U. P. Act X of 1947, and indeed they had applied for reinstatement but the proceedings were eventually stayed by the Board of Revenue.

6. The claim was resisted by the newly inducted tenants. According to them, the surrender made by Gopal Narain and Tula Ram was a voluntary surrender. After the surrender, the land-holder settled the plots with them, and ever since then they had been in possession over the plots. They acquired the rights of Sirdar after the date of vesting.

7. The Consolidation Officer found that Gopal Narain and Tula Ram were hereditary tenants of the plots before surrender. He further found that the surrender was obtained by coercion. On these findings the Consolidation Officer ordered the names of Gopal Narain and Tula Ram to be recorded as tenants-in-chief and the newly inducted tenants as trespassers.

8. On appeal, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer. He held that the objectors had failed to prove that they were the hereditary tenants under Sec. 16 of the U. P. Tenancy Act or that the surrender of the plots was made by them as a result of coercion by the land-holder. He, therefore, directed the existing entry in the na