ORDER :

B.K. Narayana, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, assisted by Sri Rajesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Singh assisted by Sri Narendra Shanker, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year, khatauni respondent nos. 3 to 7 were recorded as bhumidhar of plot No. 4660, area 0-18-4, situate in village-Pachokhar, Pargana-Jamania, district-Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the disputed plot) and the name of petitioner's father was recorded in Zaman-9. Two sets of objections were filed under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C. H. Act') before the Consolidation Officer. The first objection was filed by the petitioner alleging that he was in possession over the disputed plots since long and he had been cultivating the same by amalgamating his own plot No. 4661 with the two plots. Since long therefore, the petitioner had acquired sirdari rights in the disputed plot on the basis of adverse possession over the disputed plot. The said objection was registered as Case No. 3551. The other objection was filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 claiming that they were in possession over the disputed plot and prayed that Zaman-9 entry existing in the basic year khatauni in favour of the petitioner's father be expunged.

3. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 1.1.1972 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) allowed the petitioner's objection and directed that his name be recorded as sirdar over the disputed plot while the objection filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 7 was rejected by him by the same order. The respondent no. 3, Jamuna Rai alone filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghazipur (respondent no. 2) against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.1.1972 which was numbered as Appeal No. 900. The aforesaid order of the Consolidation officer was also challenged by two other persons Baleshwar Rai and Ram Prakash who are not parties in the present writ petition, by filing two appeals which were numbered as Appeal Nos. 800 and 917. All the three appeals were heard and decided by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent No. 2) by his order dated 21.7.1972 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). By the said order, Appeal No. 900 preferred by the respondent no. 3 before the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation was allowed while Appeal Nos. 800 and 917 were dismissed. By the order passed by the respondent no. 2, basic year entries were restored and the petitioner's father's objection was dismissed. Against the order of the respondent no. 2, petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur (respondent No. 1) which was numbered as Revision No. 1061/305 before the Joint director of Consolidation, Varanasi and dismissed by him by the impugned order dated 28.3.1980 (Annexure IV to the writ petition).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consolidation Officer, after a meticulous marshalling of the facts and microscopic scrutiny of the documentary evidence on record, had allowed the petitioner's objection and rejected that of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 holding that the petitioner had matured his rights in the disputed plot by adverse possession and had become sirdar of the disputed plot on the basis of long standing possession but the respondent no. 2 illegally allowed the appeal preferred before him by the respondent no. 3 Jamuna Rai alone and restored the basic year entries illegally holding that the petitioner's father had not acquired sirdari rights over the disputed plot on the basis of adverse possession. He next submitted that the respondent no. 2 had patently erred in law in holding that the entry existing in favour of the petitioner's father in 1359 F was of no help to him as the same was recorded on the basis of exchange and not on the basis of sub-tenancy and illegally discarded the entries of occu