Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is third round of litigation in the High Court which arises out of the proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act in pursuance of the objection filed by the petitioners herein in respect of the plot Nos. 737/1, 737/2, 738/1 and 738/3 situate in the village Jagdishpur Changan, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad.

2. In the basic year the aforesaid plots were recorded as Banzar in the name of Gaon Sabha. An objection by Babu Lal son of Ram Pratap whose decendants are the petitioners herein was filed on the allegation that the objector (herein after to referred as the petitioners) had been in occupation and possession of the aforestated disputed plots since the time immemorial and are being cultivated by him. He has installed a tubewell and has become Sirdar by operation of law. The plots in dispute are not Banzar and it is wrongly recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. It was prayed that the objection be accepted and his name be recorded as Sirdar vide objection dated 19th of November, 1974.

3. The Gaon Sabha contested the matter by denying the claim of the objector namely Babu Lal and came out with the case that the plots in dispute have always been Banzar land and is rightly recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha.

4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The only issue, thus, which fell for consideration before the consolidation Courts was whether the petitioners have acquired Sirdari right over the disputed plots and/or whether it is Gaon Sabha land.

5. The case has a chequered history as it suffered successive remand orders passed either by Settlement Officer of Consolidation or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. In the earlier round of litigation, the objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Consolidation Officer and the matter had travelled to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decided the matter in two revisions being revision Nos. 122/242 and 121/243, Babu Lal v. Gaon Sabha, by the judgment dated September 8th, 1976 and allowed both the revisions partly. The revision so far as plot Nos. 636/6, 733/6, 739/1, 739/4, 735/5, 748/4 and 738/4 are concerned was rejected. This portion of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has attained finality and is not in dispute. The revisions were allowed in respect of the plot numbers which are presently in dispute namely 737/1, 737/2, 378/1 and 738/3 situate in village Jagdishpur by passing an order of remand. The Deputy Director of Consolidation found that in respect of six plots for which the revisions were dismissed, the petitioners could not produce any evidence in support of their case that they are in occupation thereof by way of adverse possession. In respect of the remaining four plots presently in dispute, it was noticed by him that the entries in the revenue record are doubtful. There is difference in Khatauni entry and Khasra entry. The Khasra of 1357 Fasli must be in the record room and it could not be possessed by Lekhpal. It was further observed that burden lay upon the petitioners to explain the discrepancy. After remand, the Consolidation Officer mainly on the basis of the oral evidence led by the petitioners recorded a finding that the petitioners have been able to prove their adverse possession and therefore, they have become Bhumidhar of the land in dispute by the judgment dated July 17, 1979.

6. Although no appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha but one Heera Lal son of Srinath, the respondent No. 4 herein, filed an appeal being appeal No. 90 of 2002 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the allegations that the petitioners got a fresh file prepared and managed to obtain an order from the Court of Consolidation Officer, against law. The land in dispute is about ten Bighas in area and the petitioners want to grab the property of Gaon Sabha by hook or crook.

7. The First Appellate Court, the Settlement Officer of Cons