Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—These two petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as was done by the authorities below also. The facts of the case are interwoven and interlinked. Fortunately, there appears to be no dispute on fundamental facts of the case. These petitions arise out of the proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The admitted facts of the case are being noticed with reference to the writ petition No. 11924 of 1986 which are as follows :

1. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Havaldar, the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, who on 20th of August, 1952 had mortgaged the three disputed plots numbered as 175 area 0.31, 177 area 0.11 and 374 area 0.19 (total area 0.61) in favour of Vishwanath and Raghunath sons of Janki. Vishwanath is respondent No. 4 herein and Raghunath has died and he is represented by his son Chhedi, respondent No. 5.

There is some typographical error with regard to the third plot. Somewhere it is described as 375 area 0.19 acre and somewhere as plot No. 374 area 0.19 acre.

2. During the consolidation operation in village various persons, filed objections. It