A remand order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in an appeal under Section 9-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act becomes final if no revision is filed against it within the period of limitation prescribed in Rule 111 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules 1953.

1. BY the Court:-A learned Judge of this Court has referred this writ petition for decision to a larger Bench as he felt that the single Judge pronouncement made in Trivent Singh v. State of U. P., 1961 RD 58, might require reconsideration and as he also felt that the controversy involved in this petition 'is of considerable importance and is likely to occur frequently.'

2. THE facts, in brief, are these. In the basic year the land in dispute stood recorded in the names of the petitioners. It may be stated that the basic year was 1969 as the notification Trivent Singh v. State of U. P., 1961 RD 58 58 of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was issued on May 17, 1969. The petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhars of the plot in question. An objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 4, before us, claiming that the land constituted Gaon Sabha property and the petitioners' names were wrongly recorded as the Bhumidhars of the land. Contest was joined by the petitioners who claimed to have purchased the land in dispute by a sale deed which was executed in their favour on 1-5-1956 by Gur Bux Singh and Har Bhajan Singh who were alleged to have acquired sirdari rights by adverse possession and who, after having acquired sirdari rights, deposited ten times rental and became Bhumidhars of the land in dispute and thereafter executed the aforesaid sale deed dated 1-5-1959. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the Gaon Sabha on 21-2-70. An appeal was filed against the said order by the petitioners before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The said appellate authority came to the conclusion by order dated 22-8-70 that the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha as the recorded tenants had abandoned the same as was evident from the extract of 1359F. He, however, remanded the case in order to give the petitioners a further opportunity for producing evidence to prove that their vendors, Gur Bux Singh and Bhajan Singh, had acquired sirdari rights on account of their adverse possession. In the order of remand the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) not only recorded a categorical finding that the recorded tenants had abandoned the land in dispute and that it had vested in the Gaon Sabha, but also made a direction to the Consolipation Officer to decide the case after remand strictly in the light of the observations made by him. The observations made by him were that in case the petitioners failed to prove that their vendors had acquired sirdari rights before they deposited ten times rent, their claim would be liable to be dismissed inasmuch as in that event no title would accrue to them on the basis of the afore-mentioned sale deed. The petitioners did not file any revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the said remand order dated 22-8-70 passed by the appellate authority.

After remand the Consolidation Officer re-heard the matter. He held by his order dated 30-1-71 that Gur Bux Singh and Har Bhajan Singh had been in possession over the land in dispute only for two years i.e. for 1365F. and 1366F. and that they had not acquired sirdarf rights. The Consolidation Officer did not permit the petitioners to question the finding earlier recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, as the appellate authority to the effect that the recorded tenants had abandoned the land in dispute and due to such abandonment, the said land stood vested in the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order passed by the Consolidation Officer after remand. The appeal was dismissed and thereafter the petitioners went in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation but the revision was also dismissed. Before the revisional authority it was urged on behalf of the .petitioners that there was no evidence as to how the land vested in the Gaon Sabha and further there was no evidence regarding the abandonment of the land by the recorded tenants. With reference to this plea the A