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 fu