ORDER

R.L. Gulatt, J. - This writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of certain consolidation proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.

2. During the consolidation operations opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 who are the sons of one Sheo Dayal put in a claim that their names should also be recorded along with the names of the Petitioner in respect of the land in dispute. Their claim was based upon the allegation that they were the daughter's son of one Raghubar who was admittedly the co-tenure holder of the land along with the father of the Petitioner. The claim was not accepted by the Consolidation Officer, but on appeal the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accepted the claim of opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13. The Petitioner had resisted the claim on two grounds, (1) that the opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were not the daughter's son of Raghubar, and (2) that the Petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession.

3. So far as the question of adverse possession is concerned, the same was decided against the Petitioner and that matter is no longer in contest. So far as the question as to whether opposite parties Nos. 10 to 13 were the sons of