The technicalities of pleadings or procedure in filing the objections and adducing evidence is inapplicable to the consolidation proceedings.

K.N. Misra

1. IN the present writ petition dispute relates to three plots, namely, plots Nos. 763, 1321 and 1355 of Khata No. 24 situate in village Utraula, District Gonda. These plots were recorded in the names of Bachchu Lal deceased opposite party no. 4 in the basic year records. Bachchu Lai died during the pendency of this writ petition and his heirs and legal representatives are substituted. Although name of Bachchu Lal was recorded as Sirdar tenant on Khata No. 24 in the basic year Khatauni, but the name of petitioner Tahir son of Ramjan was recorded in Class 9 in part II of basic year records. Upon the publication of records under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as ' as the Act ', petitioner filed objection claiming Sirdari rights in the aforesaid plots on the basis of adverse possession. Two more objections were filed in respect of the plots in question. Smt. Mulha widow of Bismilla filed objection claiming Sirdari rights in the Khata in dispute on the basis of possession. Another objection was filed by one Riyazul Rauf claiming to be Sirdar tenure holder of the plots in dispute. Smt. Mulha did not pursue her objection. It was accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution. Riyazul Rauf and petitioner Tahir claimed Sirdari rights in separate objections which were contested by deceased opposite party no. 4 Bachchu Lal who asserted to be tenure-holder and in possession over the land in dispute. Riyazul Rauf claimed that he had filed a suit under section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Bachchu Lal. This suit No. 112 of 1957 was decreed exparte and possession was delivered on 13-7-1959. The Consolidation Officer after considering the relevant entries in revenue records, rejected the claim of Riyazul Rauf and held that exparte decree was obtained by him when Bachchu Lal was lodged in jail. He also held that Riyazul Rauf was in possession only upto 1367 Fasli. The claim of petitioner Tahir was rejected by the Consolidation Officer merely on the ground that it had been established as to on what basis his name was recorded in the revenue records since 1368 F. Learned counsel held that since entries in favour of Tahir recorded from 1368 F. were not made in accordance with the law, and, as such, he could not be held to have acquired Sirdari rights on the basis of those entries. He, however, did not discuss any other evidence led by the parties. Aggrieved by order dated 27-2-1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer petitioner as well as Riyazul Rauf filed appeals which were dismissed, vide order dated 11-2-1976 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He also rejected the claim of the petitioner on the same ground as was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by Riyazul Rauf was also rejected. Aggrieved by it petitioner preferred a revision. No revision was filed by Riyazul Rauf. Before the revisional court petitioner filed a copy of the decree dated 28-11-1970 passed in suit filed by Bachchu Lal against petitioner Tahir u/Sec. 229-B and 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This suit was said to have been decided on the basis of compromise filed by the parties, a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. IN this compromise it is recited that plaintiff Bachchu Lal is Sirdar and in possession over plot No. 1321 while defendant Tahir is in possession as Sirdar tenant over plot nos. 763 and 1355 and the plaintiff Bachchu Lal had no concern with these plots and the same be recorded in the name of defendant Tahir. This suit was thus decreed in terms of the compromise on 28-11-70. Learned Deputy Director of Consolidation permitted petitioner to file the said documents. He also summoned the original records of said suit filed under sec. 229-B/209 of the Act decided on 28-11-1970, wherein petitioner Tahir was declared to be Sirdar-tenant of the aforesaid two plots in dispute, namely, plots