JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner was recorded as bhumidhar over all the subdivisions of plot No. 118. At the time of Partal, six sets of persons were found to be in possession over the various sub-divisions of the plot, and they were so recorded. During consolidation proceedings, these six sets of persons filed separate objection. That led to the constitution of six cases, namely, Nos. 325, 326, 327, 329, 330 and 377. All these cases were contested by the petitioner. He alleged that he was the bhumidhar. All the objectors claimed sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. So, the only question whether they had matured title by adverse possession, arose in all the six cases. All of them were disposed of by a single order by the Consolidation Officer, who upheld the petitioner's case. He repelled the plea of the objectors of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The objectors filed five appeals. Sumai and Kalu did not file an appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) reversed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and held that the objectors had matured title by adverse possession for over six years. He directed that they be recorded as sirdars. He further observed that though Sumai and Khlu had filed no appeal in respect of plot Na 1189, they would also be governed by his order, because the circumstances were one and the same for all those persons. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed six revisions, which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The findings of the Settlement Officer were confirmed.

2. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court. He has filed only one writ petition here. For the respondents, a preliminary objection was taken that the writ petition was not maintainable. Reliance was placed upon Ram Shanker v. State of U.P., 1967 RD 37. There, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that where 13 revisions were filed and all of them were dismissed, the petitioner should have filed at least 13 writ petitions and he could not have raised the whole matter in one writ petition. As the order in the 12 revisions became final, there could be no interference in the 13th case. The writ petition was dismissed on that ground. The judgment is brief. It is not clear whether the points in controversy were identical in all the 13 cases or whether only some of the questions were common. In the present case, all the six cases were against the petitioner. They related to the various sub-divisions of the same plot. On facts as well as on law, the controversy was identical in all the six sets of cases. They have been disposed of as one proceeding by one order. The Settlement, Officer himself gave the benefit of his order to the non-appealing parties. Under the circumstances, it will not be proper to disentitle the petitioner from agitating the matter on the merits in this Court. Further, in Mall Singh v. Laksha Kumari Khaitan, 1968 ALJ 210, a Full Bench of this Court has held that where the right to relief arises from the same act or transaction with common questions of law and fact, or where the persons are jointly interested in the cause of action, joinder of more than one person can be permitted under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the present case, the petitioner has joined the various objectors as respondents. In my opinion, there is no defect in the frame of the petition. Since, in substance, the matter in dispute constitutes one single record, a single petition would be competent.

3. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, A.I.R. 1955 SC 233, the Supreme Court has observed that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be governed by the technical rules of English procedure relating to the issue of writs there.

4. In Arbind Kumar Singh v. Nand Kishore Prosad, A.I.R. 1968 SC 1227, the Supreme Court has held that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ to bring up for consideration a proceeding concerning civil rights is a civil proc