Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.2.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 48/76 (Badri v. Neur and others) whereby the revision filed by the respondent Badri has been allowed and it has been ordered that the name of Badri be recorded as Sirdar over the plots in dispute.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner No. 1 Neur and petitioner No. 2 Laley died and the heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondent No. 4 Badri also died and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record.

3. The petitioner’s claim to be Sirdars of plot Nos. 223/40, 224/40, 261/25, 267/34, 273/48, 295/63, 300/32, 301/35 situated in village Ramnagar, Tappa Katehra, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. According to them the name of respondent No. 4 Badri was recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that the land in question is ancestral property of the petitioner. As such the name of Badri (respondent No. 4) was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 19.5.1975 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer had framed the issue as to whether the petitioner Neur and others have any interest over the land in question.

4. While considering the issue the Consolidation Officer took into account statement of Sitaram, Baran and Ram Dulare who stated that the petitioner was in possession over the plot in dispute. The Consolidation Officer considered the extract of Khatauni from 1360 Fasli to 1372 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer decided the issue against the petitioner and held that the name of Badri in the revenue record is coming from 1360 Fasli when the zamindar had settled the land in dispute. He found that under the provisions of U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 1952 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952) records could be corrected on the basis of cultivatory possession of the land as on 1359 Fasli and therefore the entry made in the agreement register in pursuance of an order passed under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 would be deemed to be correct unless the party challenging it proves it to be wrong. The Consolidation Officer found that Badri was in possession since long and his name was entered in the revenue record correctly but since no objection/suit had been filed for more than 12 years by the petitioner the possession of Badri cannot be held to be wrong and his name in the basic year would entitle him to Sirdari rights.

5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed Appeal No. 399 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the name of Badri (respondent No. 4) to be expunged from the records. The Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded that from 1353 Fasli to 1359 Fasli the land in question was recorded in the name of Dulam in column 6. In 1360 Fasli Dulam father of the petitioners is entered as Sirdar but in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli there is a mutation entry indicating that under order of Supervisor Kanungo the name of Dulam has been expunged from the agreement register and Badri has been recorded as Sirdar. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while considering the mutation entry in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli held that no such register has been produced before him nor the order of the Supervisor Kanungo has been produced. He held that the Supervisor Kanungo had no right to expunge the name of Dulam the father of the petitioner from the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli. He has disagreed with the finding of the Consolidation Officer and held that when entry is made in the agreement register then the zamindar is always a party because it is only the zamindar who can settle the land in favour of any person. He further held that if the entry in the agreement regist