JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, the dispute relates to Plot Nos. 1838/1, 1823/1, 1816, 1817, 1815, 1824/2 and 1828/1 of Gata No. 306 of Village Lokpur, Pargana, Barsona, Tehsil and District Sultanpur which was recorded in the name of the private respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the basic year Khatauni.

2. The petitioner had filed his objections under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1953) staking claim over the disputed plots on the ground that the petitioner was in occupation of the disputed plots in question much prior to the abolition of Zamindari and thus had acquired sirdari rights in the land in dispute after the abolition of Zamindari. An alternate plea was also raised that since the petitioner was recorded as an occupant in 1359 Fasli and was in cultivatory possession three years prior to the abolition of Zamindari, hence, he acquired adhivasi rights which later matured into sirdari in 1362 Fasli and continued to be in possession.

3. It was also stated that the private respondents were influential persons who by using their influence got the name of the petitioner expunged and replaced by their own names. On becoming aware of the aforesaid, the petitioner had instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act) for declaration of his rights before the Competent Court, however, with the commencement of Consolidation Operations, the suit of the petitioner abated in light of the order dated 19.07.1975.

4. It was also stated that the petitioner had been conferred with sirdari rights in terms of Section 240 (J) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the private respondents had received compensation in respect of the land, accordingly, all rights of the private respondents got extinguished and they could not claim any right in the disputed plots nor re-agitate the claims.

5. The private respondents contested the objections filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the private respondents were recorded as cultivatory tenants having hereditary rights. They had acquired sirdari rights and continued to be in possession, prior to the abolition of Zamindari and even thereafter. Even during the first consolidation, there was some dispute regarding the rights of the private respondents which was duly adjudicated and the records were corrected and the names of the private respondents continued. It was also stated that the alleged entry in favour of the petitioner was false and fictitious and no benefit of the same could be claimed by the petitioner.

6. It was also stated that the private respondents had not received any compensation and proceedings under Section 240 (J) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, if any, were not in accordance with law nor the same had any effect on the rights of the private respondents.

7. The Consolidation Officer, (Area No. 4, Musafikhana), Sultanpur by means of his order dated 07.10.1980 accepted the contentions of the petitioner and after deleting the name of the private respondents incorporated the name of the petitioner in respect of the disputed plots. The private respondents being aggrieved against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.10.1980 preferred an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P.C.H. Act which came to be allowed by the SOC, Sultanpur by means of order dated 30.11.1981.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 30.11.1981 passed by the SOC, Sultanpur in appeal preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur which was dismissed by means of order dated 30.11.1981 affirming the order passed by the SOC.

9. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders, the petitioner instituted the instant pet