The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents had acquired adhiwasi rights under Section 20 of U.P. Z.A.L.R Act, and the petitioner's contentions were devoid of merit.

B.S. Verma, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgments and orders dated 11.3.1996 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation (Annexure No. 6) and dated 1.5.1999 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure No. 19).

2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to khata no.129 khasra no.862/1, 863/1, 864/1 and 865-A situated in village Majhola, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The respondent nos.3 and 4 claim themselves to be owners by adverse possession on parts of the aforesaid land on the basis of their alleged continuous possession since 1966. The proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act) started in the year 1986 by issuance of notification dated 20.9.1986 u/s 4 of the Act. Pursuant to the initiation of proceedings under the Act, the respondent no.3 filed his objections u/s 9-A of the Act claiming themselves owners of the land on the basis of adverse possession on the hand in question since 1966. Similar objection was also filed by respondent no.4 who also claimed themselves to be in physical possession of a part of the land in dispute. Besides this, additional objection was also filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 claiming themselves to be a legal person and it was stated by them that they are society registered under the Societies Registration Act since 1978. Against the objections filed by respondent nos.3 and 4, the predecessor of the petitioner i.e. his mother Smt. Rukmani Devi, who was a recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute filed her objections wherein Smt. Rukmani Devi categorically denied the possession of the respondents. It was also stated that respondent no.3 and 4 were not owners of the land in dispute by adverse possession. It was further stated that a society cannot be equated with an individual and hence cannot mature its title over the land in dispute by adverse possession. It was also stated that objections filed on behalf of respondent no.3 are not maintainable as they were filed by one Father Rudolf Rodrgredges who had no concerned with the society and that he was contesting the matter in personal capacity. Thereafter both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. On the basis of material available on record, the learned Consolidation Officer (for short C.O.) vide his order dated 17.1.1996, dismissed the objections of respondent nos.3 and 4. Aggrieved by the order of learned C.O. appeal was filed by Catholic Dioscese of Bareilly and Medical Sisters through their representatives managers, before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short S.O.C.) which was registered as consolidation appeal no.1518 of 1995-96. By judgment and order dated 11.3.1996, learned S.O.C. has allowed the appeal on the ground that the statement of Ganga Ram, husband of Smt. Rukmani, recorded in case no.51/172 of 1974 is admissible against Smt. Rukmani devi, which proved the possession of Catholic Diocese of Bareilly over the land in dispute. Secondly, that the statement of Father Mandosa given in ceiling case is also admissible against Smt. Rukmani Devi and he stated that Smt. Rukmani Devi had a right to cross-examine Ganga Ram and Father Mandosa, but she did not do so, hence the statements are admissible. Thirdly, that on the basis of revenue receipt and entry made by the Supervisor Kanungo P.K. 24 rent receipt it was held since Zamindari Abolition was enforced on 1st July, 1969 and prior to enforcement Father Mandosa was in possession and became sirdar by operation of law. Further aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision in the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short, D.D.C.). The ground taken in the revision was that the S.O.C. has based his judgments on inadmissible evidence therefore the judgment is perverse and that any religious society cannot acquire right on a land by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is an individual right and the cons