JUDGMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of consolidation proceedings. Smt. Kulsum Bibi, the grand-mother of the petitioners, executed a Waqf-alal-aulad in the year 1930 in respect of her Zamindari property by a registered document. On the admitted case of the parties, she became ex-proprietory tenant of her Sir plots. It appears that Smt. Kulsum Bibi executed a Thekanama in favour of one Abdul Hasan in the year 1940 for a period of ten years. In this Thekanama she gave Abdul Hasan right to let out plots given to him. The plots in dispute were described as Sir and Khud Kasht of Smt. Kulsum Bibi. The period of the Thekanama expired in the year 1950. It appears that during the term of Thekanama Abdul Hasan admitted the contesting opposite parties to occupy the land in dispute. There are Qabuliats on the records which would show that the contesting opposite parties, who previously were cultivating the disputed land on Batai rent, agreed to pay cash rent to Abdul Hasan by executing Qabuliats in his favour in May 1949.

2. Consolidation started in the village in dispute. In the basic year the contesting opposite parties were recorded as Sirdars over their respective plots which are in dispute. The petitioners, who were successors-in-interest of Smt. Kulsum Bibi, objected to the entries in favour of the contesting opposite parties. They claimed to be Sirdars themselves and asserted that the contesting opposite parties, if at all, could be Asamis of the plots in dispute.

3. All the consolidation authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners and have held that the contesting opposite parties have become Sirdars of the plots in dispute.

4. Aggrieved with the decision of the consolidation authorities, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Sharafat Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that on the execution of the Waqf deed, Smt. Kulsum Bibi became an ex-proprietary tenant of the plots in dispute. His contention is that on the execution of the lease in the year 1940, the status of Abdul Hasan was that of a sub-tenant. Abdul Hasan was permitted to let out land to others. As such under the authority granted to Abdul Hasan he let out the land in dispute to the various contesting opposite parties. The lease granted in favour of Abdul Hasan expired in 1950. After the expiration of this period of lease, the right of Abdul Hasan as well as that of the contesting opposite parties came to an end and they were liable to ejectment under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. This happened in the year 1950 and Smt. Kulsum Bibi was competent to eject these various contestants upto July 1952, but on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by virtue of their cultivatory possession, these contestants became Asamis and under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act there was no period of limitation prescribed for the ejectment of such Asamis, their status continued to be that of Asamis and of Smt. Kulsum Bibi as that of Sirdar. Thereafter the petitioners succeeded her as Sirdars. This argument has not been accepted by the consolidation authorities on different grounds.

6. On the facts as stated above, it is clear that so far as Sir plots are concerned, Smt. Kulsum Bibi would surely become an ex-proprietory tenant, but this cannot be true in respect of Khud Kasht plots unless it was established that these Khud Kasht plots were of such standing as to acquire the status of Sir under the tenancy law. This has not been proved in this case. So far as the Khud Kasht plots are concerned, on the execution of the lease in favour of Abdul Hasan, he would surely become a hereditary tenant and not a sub-tenant as contended to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, assuming for the purposes of this case that Smt. Kulsum Bibi became ex-proprietory tenant of the disputed plots, this has to be seen whether her right or the right of the petitioner