JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mahendra Pratap Tiwari, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

2. This dispute is arising out of objections filed under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1953). There is no serious dispute that in basic year entries in regard to disputed land was in favour of respondent no. 4. In the proceedings, according to the then provision of Act of 1953, conciliation proceedings were undertaken and purportedly a compromise was prepared. However, it appears that it was not materialized and matter was later on referred by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer for considering objections filed by both the parties. During the proceedings, the Consolidation Officer has framed following four issues:

The petitioner has claimed that he has purchased land in dispute during an auction (i.e. he was an auction purchaser), and has co-bhumidhari right with original respondent and has long possession whereas original respondent has denied the claim of original contesting respondent.

3. The Consolidation Officer decided the rival objections by order dated 30.06.1972 and has given the following findings:

(Emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid findings were mainly based on compromise which has been disputed by the respondents side. Petitioner's long possession for more than 12 years on Gata No. 96 and 328 was accepted, however, petitioner's claim on basis of co tenure holder on other plot was rejected since he failed to prove his possession.

4. Both the parties being aggrieved, have approached the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing independent appeals. The appeals were decided by a common order dated 05.03.1973 thereby both appeals were dismissed and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

5. Both the parties being further aggrieved have approached the Revisional Authority by filing separate revision. The revision filed by the petitioner being time barred i.e. filed five months beyond the limitation period was dismissed on ground of limitation. However, revision filed by the respondents was allowed, by order dated 14.05.1974. The relevant finding thereof are mentioned hereinafter :-

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since revision filed by the original petitioner was dismissed on limitation therefore the common impugned orders was confirmed and the Revisional Authority could not took a contrary view by allowing the revision petition filed by the original contesting respondent. He also submitted that since record was already summoned therefore, both the revisions ought to have been decided on merit and petitioner's revision ought not to have been dismissed on sole ground of limitation otherwise also delay was short and not extraordinary. Learned counsel on merit further submitted that the Revisional Authority has created a new case and that the claim of the petitioner was based on the entries, which was found to be correct and continuous. However, the Revisional Authority records a finding that claim of the petitioners would be based on adverse possession however since ground of adverse possession was not taken specifically, therefore, no benefit could be granted.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner become co-tenant being a auction purchaser and there was no dispute that Prabhu Nath has half share as well auction proceedings were