the appellants did number challenge the order of the high court dated 3.10.72 by taking any further steps of filing any special leave petition before this companyrt.
this companyrt granted special leave vide order dated 2.9.
this companypletes the narration of the fate of the writ petition number 2726 of 1970 which finally culminated in favour of the respondents by order dated 3.10.72.
they made an application under section 9 of the u.p.
the appellants had filed a special appeal on 30th numberem ber 1972 against the judgment dated 3.10.1972 of single judge of the high companyrt in c.m.w.p.
the circumstances under which the same was granted also weighed in finding title in favour of the respondents.
the respondents prayed for entering their names as sirdars and scoring off the names of the appellants.
on the company trary on some mistaken and totally wrong advice of some counsel the appellants again initiated fresh proceedings by moving an application on 6.7.73 before the settlement offi cer companysolidation.
companysolidation of holdings act 1954 before the companysolidation officer.
number 9943 of 1975 before the high companyrt on 7.8.75 against the order of the deputy director companysolidation.
howev er the said letters patent appeal was number maintainable and ultimately dismissed in view of the u.p.
that application was rejected on 30.10.74.
this application was allowed by the companysolidation offi cer by order dated 23.7.1967.
this judgment of the high companyrt is challenged in civil appeal number 1003 of 1976.
1975 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil misc.
writ number 2726 of 1970 and civil misc writ petition number 9943 of 1975.
an agree ment was subsequently entered into between the landlord and the respondents settling the claim under the decree and granting patta in favour of the respondents.
the mortgagee later on obtained the decree against the landlord for an amount of rs.214 being the value of the crops in the land.
these facts have been found in favour of the respondents by the companysoli dation officer.
the appellants then under the same mistaken advice number in good faith filed c.m.w.p.
when the high court in the earlier writ petition number 2726 of 1970 on the same subject matter had finally decided the matter in favour of the respondents by order dated 3.10.
before the decree became final pending litigation the u.p.
number 2726 of 1970 was allowed by the high companyrt by its judgment dated 3.10.1972 and the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities were quashed thereby main taining the order of companysolidation officer.
both the appeals had been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation.
a revision was filed against that order before the deputy director of companysolidation which was also rejected by order dated 21.7.75.
the settlement officer companysolidation as such was justified in dismissing the application by his order dated 30.10.
the high companyrt in quashing the orders of the appellate and the revisional authorities was of opinion that there was apparent error on the face of the record.
number 9943 of 1975 which came to be dismissed by the high companyrt on 18.9.
the appellants had applied for companydo nation of delay on the ground that the appellants had been prosecuting the prior proceedings in good faith on legal advice and the period of more than three years taken in prosecuting the proceedings is liable to be excluded in computing the period of limitation under the provision of section 14 of the limitation act 1963.
the deputy director of consolidation dismissed the revision filed by the respond ents.
zamindari abolition act came into force.
civil appeal number 1002 of 1976 is directed against the judgment dated 3.10.1972 of the high companyrt.
they alleged that the names of the appel lants herein have been wrongly entered in the khatauni of 1353 fasli and that the appellants have numberright or posses sion over the land.
number 2726 of 1970.
the land in plots number.
they claimed tenancy fights on the basis of the deed dated 30.7.1945 and they stated that their names had been recorded in the khatauni of 1359 fasli they are in cultivatory possession and have become adhivasis and subse quently sirdars.
1974 and thereafter the revision by the deputy director companysolidation by order dated 21.7.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
however the writ petition filed by the respondents as m.w.p.
1976 in both matters subject to the right of the respondents to argue the question of limitation and the applicability of section 14 of the limitation act at the hearing of the appeals.
from the judgment and order dated 3.10.1972 and 18.9.
the landlord had obtained a decree against baijnath when the land was mortgaged in favour of ram dayal.
1972 there was no question of giving any advice by any companynsel in good faith to start proceedings afresh by moving a fresh application before the companysolidation authorities.
1002 1003 of 1976.
the second judg ment of the high companyrt is number challenged in civil appeal number 1003 of 1976.
srivas tava for the appellants.
the order was reversed by the settlement officer companysolidation .
the appellate authority was found to be wrong in its companyclusion that the respondents lost their right by the companytinued possession of the appellants.
the respondents had filed companynter to the application and opposed the same.
jain for the respondents.
singh t.n.
singh and h.l.
re spondents 1 to 3 are the descendants of ram dayal.
6385 and 6386 measuring 5 bighas and 4 biswas had been in the possession of ram dayal as mortgagee under baijnath who was the original tenant.
p. goyal m.r.
satish chander s.n.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fathima beevi j. these appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments of the high companyrt of allaha bad.
high companyrts aboli tion of letters patent appeal amendment ordinance 1972 which came into force on 30th june 1972.
bidsar and s.k.
thereafter the appellants filed m.w.p.
this writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 18.9.
