Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

2. By means of present writ petition under Secton 226 of the Constitution of India the orders dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and 21.5.2009 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar respondent No. 2 and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnager, respondent No. 1 respectively are sought to be quashed.

3. The dispute in the present writ petition primarily relates to plot No. 694/1 of Khata No. 211 measuring 2 bigha 17 biswa (herein after referred to as the disputed plots). The factual position is that late Mukunda father of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was recorded as chief tenant and the names of Chhajju father of the petitioner and Jittu son of Pirwa respondent No. 8 were recorded in clause-IX in the basic year. Since Mukanda died leaving behind Ram Kumar, Deshraj and Charan Singh (minor) as his heirs and legal representatives, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (herein after referred to as the contesting respondents), after the extracts from the record were issued as provided under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the Act),) the contesting respondents filed an objection under Section 9A-2 of the Act with a prayer that their names may be recorded as chief tenants/bhumidhars of the disputed plot in place of their deceased father Mukanda and the entries existing in column-IX in favour of Chhajju and respondent No. 8 of the Khasra be expunged as the same had been illegally made without issuing P.A. 10 notice either to them or to their father Mukanda as required by paragraphs A-80, A-81 and 423 (5) 5 of U.P. Land Records Manual Act. The contesting respondents in their objection filed before the A.C.O. also denied the possession of the petitioner’s father as well as that of respondent No. 8 over the plot in dispute. The said objection was registered as Case No. 482. When the petitioner came to know about the filing of objection by the contesting respondents in respect of the plot in dispute the petitioner also filed an application/objection under Section 9-A-2 of the Act before the respondent No. 3 alleging that he and before him his father late Chhajju and respondent No. 8 had been in possession of the plot in dispute for the last more than 29 years and as such their names were liable to be recorded as Bhumidhars of the plot in dispute in the revenue records and the and the name of deceased Mukunda was liable to be expunged. The said application/objection was registered as Case No. 483. The petitioner in order to prove his title over the disputed plot by adverse possession filed extracts of khatauni of 1365f, 1366F to 1370F, 1371F to 1373F, 1374F to 1376F and 1377 to 1381F, 1378F to 1385F as documentary evidence and examined Jittu, Vishmbhar Phallu and himself as P.W.-1 to P.W. 4 respectively. On behalf of the contesting respondents Smt. Bhamuli widow of Mukunda, the mother of the contesting respondents examined herself as D.W. -1 and Sri Parantu and Atar Singh as D.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. The contesting respondents also filed extracts of Khatauni of 1374F to 1376F as documentary evidence.

4. The respondent No. 3 after considering the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record decided both the cases by his order dated 5.10.1988 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) and directed that the name of deceased Mukanda recorded as chief tenant of the disputed plot be expunged and the names of petitioner and the respondent No. 8 be recorded in his place as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot.

Aggrieved from the order dated 5.10.1988, the contesting respondents preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as appeal No. 106/975 of 1988. It appears that in the said appeal in which the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 8 wer