JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rajendra Kumar Ojha, Advocate for Respondent-2 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Advocate for Respondents-3 and 5.

2. In the present case, dispute is in respect of a land situated at Khata No.243 at Village:Bankat, District-Azamgarh.

3. In the basic year, undisputedly, name of one of the petitioners Imdad @ Khurtalli and Sajjad (father of original petitioner no.2) were recorded in revenue records. During consolidation proceedings, two objections were filed under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953").

4. First objection was filed by Yasin son of Khedan and second objection was filed by Mohd. Sami and others (original respondent nos.2 to 5) and they claimed rights on the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 31.3.1973 executed by Yasin.

5. Before the Consolidation Officer, original petitioners claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of a Patta dated 27.7.1951 executed by Yasin in their favour which was made applicable since 1.7.1951 i.e. prior to date of execution of Patta.

6. Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of original contesting respondents and others vide order dated 17.1.1976 and accepted their claim on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 31.3.1973 and the claim of petitioners on the basis of Patta executed on 27.7.1951 was rejected. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:

" The suit of cancellation of patta alleged to have been filed by Yasin in the year 1958 ended on 26.9.1960 against Yasin and in favour of Siddiq completed all two previous proceedings regular and correct in favour of Siddiq but as a matter of fact the jurisdiction of civil court was confined only to decide whether the alleged patta was liable to be cancelled or not in which there is a finding also that Siddiq is already sirdar and patta could not be cancelled on this score. The concealment of fact in the light of the said proceedings lastly influenced the judgment of the civil court also. The facts on which it is based no more exist now. Not only this, the fact that Siddiq was sirdar in the proceeding under section 229-B stands vitiated by fraud as held by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in the restoration application filed by Yasin in the year 1969 finally decided in 1974. Thus from all the surroundings circumstances, the demeanour of Siddiq undoubtedly was not above reproach and the law of equity provides that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The attitude of Siddiq as referred above was not based on honest dealing. The period spent during the existence of fradulent decree of 229-B cannot help objectors. Imdad and other son of Siddiq as laid on in 1969 RD Page 61 that fradulent decree does not exist in the eyes of law and consolidation courts can go behind. The decree where serious allegation of fraud is made. One fact is worth mentioning here that orders were noted down in the Khatauni in amaldaramad which was produced in the Munsif Court. Had Yasin been represented there his counsel must have detected the fact that order of sirdari right had already been pronounced in favour of Siddiq and Yasin might have filed restoration application then and there. His silence for a pretty long time shows that actually he had no knowledge of the proceedings and was in possession.

On the point of possession Imdad and Sajjad led no evidence through independent witnesses who could state that t