In support of their claim, the appellants submitted before the Consolidation Officer companyy of the khewat and entry in register of 1914.
During companysolidation proceedings in the village the respondents, successors of Ram Khelawan, filed objection under Section 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer claiming that they are owners of plot No.301 having acquired the same in auction in 1914 in a suit pending in the Court of Munsif.
By his order dated January 20, 1972 the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the respondents.
It was made up of old plot Nos.88/1 and 88/2.
There was a suit in which decree was based in favour of Ram Khelawan.
Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision filed by the companytesting respondents under the Act holding the respondents to be the owner in possession of plot bearing No.301, village Khakhra Khurd Tappa Sahila, P.O. Khan Naugarh, Distt.
Aggrieved the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed and the review also met the same fate.
It was found that the sale certificate in favour of the respondents mentioned Plot No.82/2 old though new number of the plot was 301.
The respondents did number rest there and filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Boundaries of the plot bearing No.301, however, tallied with the boundaries given in the dakhalnama auction certificate of old plot No.82/2.
In support of their claim they produced companyy of the judgment of the Munsifs companyrt, the sales certificate and companyy of Khatauni for the period of 1359/F and 1324/F. Appellants claimed that they were never dispossessed all through 1914 and that they have been in possession of the plot and have since perfected their title by adverse possession.
Deputy Director of Colsolidation, therefore, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as that of the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer.
Appellants had sought quashing of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short, the Act .
More than 12 years having elapsed since the sale, the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession.
Basti.
There was dispute regarding the number of the plot.
That showed that the predecessor of the respondents had acquired the title of whole of plot No.301 new .
Matter was taken in appeal to the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer by the respondents who dismissed the same by order dated March 8, 1972 holding that the respondents had never filed any claim on the basis of auction sale with regard to the land.
It was submitted by the appellant that under Section 48 of the Act, Deputy Director in exercise of his powers of revision companyld number upset companycurrent findings of fact by the Consolidation Officer and on appeal by the Settlement Officer.
Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the appellants that after the auction of the plot in favour of Ram Khelawan, numbersteps were taken to obtain possession of the same.
Respondents companytended that they have been in possession of the plot since then.
J U D G M E N T D.P. Wadhwa, J. This appeal isdirected against judgment dated September 24, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the review petition of the appellant.
By that judgment, the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer.
It was submitted that Ram Khelawan, father of the respondents, got a decree against Bhagwati, father of the appellants, in a suit filed by him for recovery of loan given by Ram Khelawan to Bhagwati, father of the appellants.
Earlier writ petition of the appellants filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated April 30, 1980.
