Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the appellate as also the revisional prdoceedings thereafter under Section 11 and 48 of the Act, 1953.

3. The case at hand has a chequered history. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that in the basic year Khatauni, Gata No. 1020 (1.26 acres) and 2113 (0.30 decimal) were recorded in the name of Indraj Singh, father of the contesting respondents herein. Chhotkau Singh, the brother of Indraj Singh and father of the petitioner herein, filed objections under Section 9 claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share in the aforesaid holding, which according to him, was originally recorded in the name of Sher Bahadur Singh. It is said that at the level of the Consolidation Officer, a compromise was arrived at between the contesting parties on 29.12.1975 and accordingly, an order was passed in terms thereof, accepting the co-tenancy of Chhotkau Singh to the extent of half share in the holding. It is said by the petitioner that till 1981 no dispute was raised by Indraj Singh.

4. On 11.9.1981, Indraj Singh filed an appeal which was dismissed on 22.12.1975 on the ground of limitation and also on merit. Indraj Singh filed a revision which was allowed on 27.5.1986. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the matter was remanded back to the S.O.C i.e. the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on 27.9.1986 allowed the appeal of Indraj Singh, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer which was based on compromise, and remanded the matter back to him for a decision afresh. On remand, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of Chhotkau Singh on 6.10.2001. Being aggrieved, Chhotkau Singh filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 22.7.2002. Some times prior to filing of the appeal or thereafter Chhotkau Singh as also Indraj Singh died and the legal heirs, who are before this Court, were substituted in their place.

5. Thereafter, legal heirs of Chhotkau Singh filed a revision under Section 48, which was also dismissed on 21.7.2002. Against this background, this writ petition has been filed assailing the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer, S.O.C and D.D.C. The contention of Sri Q.M. Haq, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in nutshell, is that in 1359 fasli Gata No. 3160, 3161 and 2187 were recorded in the name of Sher Bahadur Singh, father of Chhotkau Singh and Indraj. He referred to khatauni relating to 1360 fasli to contend that due to error, the name of Indraj Singh alone got recorded in respect of Gata No. 3160, 3161 and 2817, whereas, Sher Bahadur Singh had six sons and out of these, four sons were in possession of land in another village, while the remaining two sons, namely, Chhotkau Singh and Indraj Singh were in possession of land in village Bakshipurwa. He further contended that the entries in the Khatauni of 1360 fasli even otherwise was erroneous, therefore, proceedings were initiated under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act, 1901, for correction of records, wherein, a compromise was arrived at between Narpath Singh, whose name was entered in respect of Gata No. 2113 and Indraj Singh, whose name was entered as aforesaid and an order was passed in terms of compromise on 22.10.1956 to the effect that Narpath Singh was in possession of Gatas No. 3160, 3161 and 2817, whereas, Indraj Singh s/o Sher Bahadur, was in possession of Gata No. 2113. Based on this, it is contended that this error infact existed in the Khatauni relating to 1359 fasli also wherein the name of Sher Bahadur Singh had been recorded, meaning thereby, according to the Counsel for the petitioner he was also sirdar in respect of Gata No. 2113 and not Gatas No. 3160, 3161 and 2817.

6. It is not in dispute that Gata No. 2113 is the subject-matter of dispute in these proceedings. T