JUDGMENT

H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - These petitions raise a question regarding the interpretation of rule 177 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and para 79, sub-paragraph (7) of the U.P. Gaon Samaj Manual.

The petitioners in the writ petitions nos. 3384 and 3387 of 1963 are the residents of village, Baraigarh in the district of Kanpur. They were allotted by the Land Management Committee of the village certain plots of land in accordance with rules and the Chairman of the Committee executed leases in their favour which were got registered. As the village was taken under consolidation operations the petitioners claimed before the Consolidation Officer on the basis of the registered leases in their favour that they had been in cultivatory possession of the plots and that they should be entered as Bhumidhars of the plots in whose name should be expunged from the records.

2. On behalf of the Gram Samaj the Lekhpal objected to the entry of the petitioners' name in respect of the plots on the ground that the lease "in their favour were illegal and invalid" and no rights could accrue to them on the basis of those leases. Evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of the registered leases they had been in possession of the land for the last three years and as the Patta was not attested by the Supervisor Qanungo, they got it registered. They also asserted before the Consolidation Officer that the Land Management Committee had passed a resolution on 25-4-1962 for not contesting the case in respect of the land conveyed under the leases.

3. The Consolidation Officer disposed of the claims of the petitioners by a common judgment dated 9-1-1963. He had that "there is a mandatory provision of law that patta having land revenue less than Rs. 100/- be got attested by the Supervisor Qanungo as laid down in para 79(7) of the U.P. Gram Samaj Manual .... Therefore the patta in question cannot be said lawfully correct and valid. I therefore find that no rights are accrued to the applicant on the basis of patta and therefore its mutation is refused and the application is rejected." He however directed to have their names entered in class 4 of Khatauni as trespassers of Gaon Samaj over some of the plots in which they were found to be in cultivatory possession on his spot enquiry.

4. The petitioners went up in appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer dismissed the appeals inter alia on the ground that the patta were invalid on account of their not having been verified by the Supreme Court Qanungo and also because in his opinion they were Farzi and fictitious and no rights accrued because of these pattas. In revision, the Director of Consolidation held that "even if the contention of the revisionists is accepted that the leases were valid and properly registered the learned counsel for the revisionists has not been able to explain away the requirements of rule 177 of the Z.A.L.R. Rules read with para 79(7) of the Gaon Samaj Manual.... The leases, therefore, cannot be said to be valid as they do not fulfil the requirements of para 79(7) of the Gaon Samaj Manual", and dismissed the revisions. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid orders.

5. It may be noted here that in Writ petition No. 3387 of 1963 no counter-affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents traversing the allegations made in the petition. In writ petition No. 3384 of 1963 counter-affidavit has been filed by one Babu Singh alleging that the disputed plots had been given to him in Chak No. 287 and the deponent has taken possession in the month of June, 1963.

6. From the aforesaid narration of facts it is evident that the main ground on which the petitioners' claim has been rejected by the Consolidations Authorities was that as the lease under which they claimed a right had not been attested by any revenue court or revenue officer as enjoined under rule 177 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,