Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is directed against the order dated 14.11.1972 passed in Case No. 5526 (Ram Murat v. Ram Briksha) by the Consolidation Officer the order dated 4.3.1974 passed in Appeal No. 233 (Ram Briksha v. Ram Murat) by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation as also against the revisional order dated 20.3.1976 passed in Revision No. 3155 (Ram Briksha v. Ram Murat) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner Ram Briksha died and he was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives and Respondent No. 4, Ram Murat also died and he was also substituted by his heirs and legal representatives.

3. The dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No. 663, area 6 Vishwa and 10 Dhoor situated in Village Bhaskarpur, Pargana Kera Mangraur, Tehsil Chakiya, District Varanasi.

4. The Consolidation Officer considered the case of Ram Murat (Respondent No. 4) who had objected during survey upon which report was submitted and the Consolidation Officer registered it as an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act to the effect that his name was entered in the basic year in Column-I and he had matured sirdari rights. The petitioner, Ram Briksha disputed the claim of Ram Murat whereupon the Consolidation Officer framed an issue for decision. The issue was “whether Ram Murat is sirdar in possession of Gata No. 663 area 6 Vishwa 10 Dhoor”. On the said issue the parties led their documentary and oral evidence.

5. The Consolidation Officer considered the oral evidence of Ram Murat who stated that he has been in recorded possession since the time of his ancestors who had effected a partition. Ram Briksha also gave his oral statement that he is in possession of the land in question and Ram Murat belongs to his extended family.

6. Ram Murat filed documentary evidence in the form of khatauni of 1344F, 1347F, 1350F, 1354F, 1365F and 1366F. He also filed khasra of 1347F, 1356F, 1357F, 1359F and irrigation slips of 1360F, 1361F, 1362F and 1363F. On behalf of Ram Briksha khasra of 1366F and 1369F to 1374F as also six irrigation slips were filed.

7. The Consolidation Officer has recorded that new number of Gata No. 663 is 670/1 and 670/2. From the khatauni of 1334F it is apparent that on the said two plots the name of Kedar, father of Ram Murat has been recorded as in possession. In the khatauni of 1341F, Ram Murat has been shown in possession. The possession of Ram Murat is also shown in khatauni of 1347F and 1354F as also in khasra from 1356F to 1368F. On the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence the Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that Ram Murat has been in possession over the land in question from time of his father (1334F) hence when he was occupant of the land in question on the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was recorded in the revenue record hence being an Adhiwasi he had matured his rights as a sirdar since the irrigation slips produced for the period from 1365F to 1374F indicates his possession. The Consolidation Officer on the above evidence recorded that any rights claimed by Ram Briksha stood extinguished prior to 1356F and there was no evidence filed by Ram Briksha regarding his continuous possession over the land in question. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of possession and in view of Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act declared Ram Murat as the occupant and subsequently as sirdar and directed his name to be entered as such. He held that Ram Briksh (Respondent No. 4) was not the recorded occupant of the land in question.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Ram Briksha preferred an Appeal No. 5526 before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur Camp, Varanasi. The appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer by recording that th