the respondents as a result of the companypromise were held to be sirdars of the plots in dispute.
the respondents in the present appeal companyfined their relief in the high companyrt to plots number 573 and 1039 of village hathawra pargana and tehsil saidpur district ghazipur.
the decree was upheld on appeal on 21 july 1958.
the appellants mother thereafter made an application against the said order passed by the assistant consolidation officer under section 8 of the act.
the circumstances under which the names of the appellants were entered and the names of the respondent were expunged by the appropriate authorities are as follows.
ram dhari father of the appellants and other villagers in the year 1947 made companyplaints against the patwari of the village.
mansa ram sarbarakar of the math made an application under section 145 of the criminal procedure code against the respondents.
the respondents filed a second appeal in the high companyrt.
the assistant companysolidation officer ordered that the order might be re agitated subsequently under section 12 of the act.
the sub divisional officer on 22 may 1947 made an order punishing the patwari.
ram dhari father of the appellants filed a suit in the year 1953 against the respondents and mansa ram.
the further admission in the companypromise was that the entry in the revenue records in favour of the respondents was fictitious.
suits were filed between the parties.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated july 13 1965 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 314 of 1965.
the appeal was allowed on 22 june 1963.
the appellants filed a writ petition under article 226 challenging the order of the companysolidation authorities.
before the remand order was passed by the deputy director the statement of the proposal had been published under section 20 1 of the companysolidation act 1953.
companysolidation of holdings act 1953 companymenced.
the appellants thereafter filed a revision petition before the deputy director of companysolidation.
zamindari abolition and land reforms act was number a fictitious entry.
on 20 february 1963 the consolidation officer ghazipur dismissed the objections of the appellants.
the respondents asked for quashing the order of the deputy director of companysolidation dated 7 september 1963 and of the settlement officer companysolidation dated 22 june 1963.
the respondents further contended that they became sirdars in the year 1954 and therefore their claims were rightly recorded as sirdars in the revenue records.
the respondents brought civil suit in the year 1953 against math sri chand and claimed tenancy rights by adverse possession.
zamindari abolition and land reforms act.
companysolidation of holdings act as sirdars in respect of the said plots by expunging the name of ram dhari father of the appellants.
he remanded the same to the companysolidation officer for further enquiry.
the appellants claimed that they had acquired adhivasi and sirdari rights and that their names had been 12 li52sup.ci/73 recorded.
on 21 december 1955 there was a decree in favour of ram dhari.
eventually the allotment of the plots was companyfirmed in favour of the respondents.
the appellants companytentions in the high companyrt were these.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray j. this is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 13 july 1965 of the high companyrt of allahabad dismissing special appeal number 314 of 1965.
the respondents subsequently applied for setting aside the companypromise decrees on the ground that they had been obtained fraudulently.
the appellants filed an objection under section 12 of the act.
the deputy director of companysolidation dismissed the revision application on 7 september 1963.
the settlement officer accepted the appeal and allowed the objection of the appellants and directed that the names of the respondents be expunged and that the names of the appellants be entered on records.
the respondents companytentions in the high companyrt were these.
during the pendency of the suits consolidation proceedings under the u.p.
the name of deep chand father of the respondents was recorded as kabiz meaning thereby in possession in the remarks companyumn of the khasra and khatauni of 1356 fasli.
possession was delivered to the respondents on 29 march 1961.
the appellants filed an appeal under section 12 of the u.p.
a compromise was entered into in the suits.
the facts in the present appeal are these.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1167 of 1967.
new revenue records were finally prepared and published.
ram dhari and his sons the present appellants were number parties either to the suit filed by the respondents or the proceedings under section 145 of the criminal procedure companye brought by mansa ram against the respondents.
the respondents filed a revision application under section 48 of the companysolidation of holdings act 1953.
the learned single judge quashed the orders dated 7 septem ber 1963 and 22 june 1963.
the deputy director of companysolidation in the order dismissing the respondents revision application treated the finding of the settlement officer against the village patwari as a finding that the entry in favour of deep chand father of the respondents was fictitious.
the appellants did number file objections under section 20 2 of the act.
the objection was dismissed on 8 may 1960 by the consolidation officer.
the order was maintained by the bench decision of that high companyrt.
v. goswami for the appellant.
the appeal was dismissed by the settlement officer companysolidation on 4 july 1960.
companysolidation of holdings act.
ram dhari father of the appellants claimed to be sub tenants of math sri chand in respect of the said plots.
it was admitted by 1 1968 1 s. c. r. 17 air 1971 s. 673 the respondents that the appellants were bhoomidars and that the respondents had number interest.
the settlement officer in the companysolidation proceedings rightly allowed the objection of the appellants and directed that the names of the respondents be expunged and that the names of the appellants be entered on record.
the respondents were recorded under section 8 of the u.p.
the respondents on the other hand claimed possession of the plots and also claimed adhivasi sirdari rights on the basis of being occupants.
the proceedings under section 145 of the criminal procedure companye also ended in favour of the respondents.
the respondents thereafter filed a writ petition in the high court.
the second appeal was stayed because of companysolidation proceedings.
the appellants filed an appeal against the judgment dated 8 may 1960.
p. singh chauhan d. p. s. chauhan and v. c. prashar for the respondents.
the parties entered into a companypromise of the suit.
litigation companycerning the plots in dispute had gone on.
the respondents made an application under article 226 of the companystitution for quashing the order of the deputy director of consolidation dated 7 september 1963 dismissing the revision petition of the respondents against the order of the settlement officer companysolidation ghazipur dated 22 june 1963 ordering the entry of the names of the appellants in respect of the plots in dispute in the present appeal.
