ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Shri Shankata Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nagendra Kr. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25-2-1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 15-1-1971 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Brief facts which emerge from the pleading of parties are: 3. Dispute in writ petition relates to plots of Khata No. 46 namely plot Nos. 210, 223, 331, 353 and 378/2. Notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as Consolidation Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 10-5-1969. In the basic year records the name of petitioner Ram Narain was recorded over land of Khata in dispute. An objection under Section 9 of Consolidation Act was filed by respondent No. 4 who stated in the objection that name of petitioner is wrongly recorded over land in dispute. It was stated that the land was earlier recorded in the name of Smt. Ganga Devi, step mother of Babu Ram, respondent No. 4 and she having no authority to transfer the land executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner. It was claimed that land originally belongs to Raja Ram, father of respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 being heir of Raja Ram is entitled for the land in dispute. It was further claimed that Smt. Ganga Devi, step mother of petitioner was only looking after the land during period of minority of respondent No. 4. The objection filed by respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioner. It was claimed that Smt. Ganga Devi had acquired the land in dispute from whom petitioner purchase the land by registered sale deed dated 28-6-1967. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 13-5-1970 rejected the objection of respondent No. 4. The Consolidation Officer directed that entry in the name of the petitioner shall continue. The Consolidation Officer recorded the finding that land in dispute was self-acquisition of Smt. Ganga Devi. The Consolidation Officer held that respondent No. 4 having not filed suit for possession for 8 years after attaining majority, he is debarred for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer recorded the finding that land in dispute was self-acquisition of Smt. Ganga Devi. The Consolidation Officer held that respondent No. 4 having not filed suit for possession for 8 years after attaining majority, he is debarred for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer also noted in his judgment that name of Smt. Ganga Devi was recorded under the orders dated 14-12-1954 Case No. 235/3094 passed by Tahsildar. 4. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by respondent No. 4 who vide order dated 15- 1-1971 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed recording of name of respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner. A revision was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 17-4-1971. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 3076 of 1971 challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. This Court vide its judgment dated 19-4-1973 allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner by setting aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-4-1971. The case was remitted to the Revisional Court for deciding the revision afresh according to law. Copy of judgment of the High Court has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 5. After the remand by the High Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25-2- 1975 dismissed the revision of petitioner. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order observed that it is acceptable to both the counsels that land in dispute was acquisition of Raja Ram. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further held that adverse possession of the petitioner can at best be treated with effect from 1967 when sale deed was executed in his favour by Smt. Ganga Devi and since consolidation operation started in the village in 1969, the revision of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further observed that respondent No. 4 Babu Ram cannot be held responsible for litigation started by Smt. Kailasa the mother of respondent No. 4 against Smt. Ganga Devi. It has further been observed that there is no evidence that there has been any litigation between respondent No. 4 and Ganga Devi after 1959 when Babu Ram attained majority. It has further been observed that there is no evidence that there has been any litigation between respondent No. 4 and Ganga Devi after 1959 when Babu Ram attained majority. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-2-1975 as well as the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 6. It is also necessary to note certain more relevant facts which are on the record for appreciating the controversy between the parties. On the land in dispute, the name of Ram Swaroop was recorded as tenant who died before Abolition of Zamindari. It has come in the evidence that Raja Ram, husband of Smt. Kailasa and Smt. Ganga Devi was in possession from 1357 to 1361 Fasli. Raja Ram also died and after the death of Raja Ram Smt. Ganga Devi filed an application for recording her name before the revenue officer on which an order was passed on 14-12-1954 for recording the name of Smt. Ganga Devi as Sirdar. The name of Ganga Devi is recorded from 1362 Fasli onwards. A dispute under Section 145 Cr. P. C. started regarding possession of land in dispute between Smt. Ganga Devi and Smt. Kailasa under Section 145 Cr. P. C. By the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 25-7-1955 Smt. Ganga Devi was declared in possession. A suit No. 858/1955 was filed by Babu Ram (as minor in guardianship of Smt. Kailasa against Smt. Ganga Devi with regard to other lands ). Babu Ram attained majority on 20-5-1959 having been born on 21-5-1941. A sale deed was executed by Smt. Ganga Devi in favour of petitioner in the year 1957. An application for mutation was given by the petitioner on the basis of sale deed. The said mutation application was allowed by the order dated 14-2-1969 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Notification dated 29-4-1969 was issued under the Consolidation Act with regard to village in question in which objection was filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 9 on 5-2-1970. 7. An application for mutation was given by the petitioner on the basis of sale deed. The said mutation application was allowed by the order dated 14-2-1969 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer. Notification dated 29-4-1969 was issued under the Consolidation Act with regard to village in question in which objection was filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 9 on 5-2-1970. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sankhata Rai in support of the writ petition raised following submissions: (i) The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in not deciding the question as to whether the land in dispute was self acquisition of Smt. Ganga Devi whereas this Court vide its judgment dated 19-4- 1973 after setting aside the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-4- 1971 remanded the matter for deciding the case afresh. Observation of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Counsel for both the parties have has conceded before him that land in dispute is self acquired property of Raja Ram is a incorrect statement. (ii) The respondent No. 4 having not filed suit for possession after attaining the majority within time prescribed in law, his claim during consolidation is barred by time. (iii) Smt. Ganga Devi had perfected the right by continuing in possession for more than statutory period, the claim of respondent No. 4 is barred. The adverse possession against respondent No. 4 as well as adverse possession of Smt. Ganga Devi, step mother of respondent No. 4 has to be tagged. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel for the petitioner also on several decisions which will be referred to while considering the said submissions. 8. Shri N. K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the submission of the Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioners Counsel having conceded before Deputy Director of Consolidation that land in dispute was self acquired property of Raja Ram, it is not open for the petitioner to contend to the contrary before this Court. He further submitted that no right by adverse possession can be perfected against a minor. The Counsel for the respondent in support of his submissions placed reliance on judgment of the apex Court in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 70, Padma Vithoba Chakkayya v. Mohd. Multani and another and AIR 1948 Nagpur 253, Mt. Maltibai and another v. Wamanrao Sheoram and others. 9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The Counsel for the respondent in support of his submissions placed reliance on judgment of the apex Court in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 70, Padma Vithoba Chakkayya v. Mohd. Multani and another and AIR 1948 Nagpur 253, Mt. Maltibai and another v. Wamanrao Sheoram and others. 9. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The first submission of Counsel for the petitioner is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has not adverted to the question as to whether the property was acquired by Smt. Ganga Devi or Raja Ram. 10. The Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an affidavit of Counsel who appeared before Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that no such concession was made before Deputy Director of Consolidation that land in dispute is self acquired property of Raja Ram. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment dated 25-2-1975 has clearly noted that now it is acceptable to Counsel for both the parties that disputed land was self acquisition of Raja Ram. The Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said statement in the judgment and has placed reliance on affidavit of Counsel Ram Balak Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner who appeared before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Judgment of the apex Court reported in 1971 RD 162, Bachan Singh and others v. Gauri Shanker Agarwal and others, has been relied by the Counsel for the petitioner for the said submissions. Before the case in apex Court, the question was as to whether particular point was argued before the Board of Revenue by Counsel for the appellant or not. In view of the aforesaid context, following was observed by the apex Court: "an attempt was made to argue before this Court that the Counsel for the appellants had in fact argued before the Board of Revenue that the evidence in support of the finding of the Additional Commissioner as regards possession in inadmissible but the Board had ignored that argument. We are unable to accept this contention. " 11. In the above case the Counsel who argued the case before the Board of Revenue has not filed any affidavit either before the High Court or before the apex Court stating that the Board had ignored his argument as regards the admissibility of certain evidence. We are unable to accept this contention. " 11. In the above case the Counsel who argued the case before the Board of Revenue has not filed any affidavit either before the High Court or before the apex Court stating that the Board had ignored his argument as regards the admissibility of certain evidence. The aforesaid observation were made by the apex Court in that context which do not held the petitioner in the present case. 12. It is relevant to note that the impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was passed on 25- 2-1975 and the writ petition was filed immediately on 30-4-1975. In the writ petition, there is no averment to the effect that Counsel for the petitioner did not concede before Deputy Director of Consolidation that land in dispute is self acquisition of Raja Ram, rather in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it was stated that even accepting without conceding that the land in dispute belongs to Sri Raja Ram, the possession of Smt. Ganga Devi in denial of the opposite parties was adverse and she having remained in possession for more than the statutory and the opposite party having not filed any suit for ejectment after attaining majority he lost right and title in the land in dispute. The averment to the effect that Counsel for the petitioner never admitted before Deputy Director of Consolidation that land in dispute is self acquired property of Raja Ram for the first time was taken in the affidavit dated 12- 1- 1988 i. e. after more that 12 years from filing of the writ petition. Taking consideration of over all facts, petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the statement of above fact as recorded in the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-2-1975. Further more in the affidavit of Counsel for the petitioner dated 7-9-1987, although it has been specifically started that no concession was made before the Deputy Director of Consolidation as recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation, but it has not been averred that submission was pressed before Deputy Director of Consolidation that land is self acquired property of Smt. Ganga Devi. 13. In view of the aforesaid, Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in not considering the question as to whether land in dispute is self acquired property of Smt. Ganga Devi. 14. 13. In view of the aforesaid, Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in not considering the question as to whether land in dispute is self acquired property of Smt. Ganga Devi. 14. Second and Third submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner being inter related are being considered together. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment dated 25-2-1975 has found that petitioner attained majority in the year 1959. The date of birth of the petitioner as noted by Deputy Director of Consolidation is 21-5-1941. The petitioner according to the certificate filed before the consolidation authorities attained majority on 20-5-1959. It is not disputed that Raja Ram married Smt. Ganga Devi after his marriage with Kailasa. Babu Ram is the son of first wife Smt. Kailasa. Raja Ram died before 22-4- 1954 since on that date Smt. Ganga Devi filed an application before Revenue Officer to record her name. The name of Smt. Ganga Devi was entered on 19-12-1954. The Revenue Officer vide his order dated 19-12-1954 directed for recording the name of Smt. Ganga Devi as Sirdar in case No. 235/3094 and the name of Smt. Ganga Devi was recorded in revenue record of 1362 Fasli. Immediately thereafter, dispute arose regarding possession between mother of respondent No. 4 and Smt. Ganga Devi in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Both, mother of respondent No. 4 and Kailasa Devi were claiming possession. Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 25-7-1955 declared possession of Smt. Ganga Devi. The mother of respondent No. 4 being natural guardian of respondent No. 4 and also having claimed possession of land in dispute, it cannot be accepted that possession of Smt. Ganga Devi over land in dispute was on behalf of respondent No. 4. It is also on the record that suit No. 858 of 1955 was filed by Babu Ram (as minor in guardianship of Smt. Kailasa) against Smt. Ganga Devi with regard to other lands which was decided on 6-11-1967 by the Civil Court. It is relevant to note that in the suit filed in Civil Court, the land in dispute was not included, although the said suit was filed by mother of respondent No. 4 Smt. Kailasa Devi on his behalf. Majority was attained by respondent No. 4 on 20-5- 1959 and when respondent No. 4 attained majority he was not in possession of land in dispute. 15. Majority was attained by respondent No. 4 on 20-5- 1959 and when respondent No. 4 attained majority he was not in possession of land in dispute. 15. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act does not make any provision for acquisition of rights by a tenure-holder by adverse possession. All it provides for is suits for dispossession of persons taking wrongful possession and it is only after the period of limitation for such suits expires and suit become time barred with consequential extinguishing the right of tenure holder are extinguished. Division Bench of this Court 1966 RD 42, Puttu Singh and others v. Kirat Singh and others, laid down that after expiration of period of limitation provided for suit for dispossession of person taking wrongful possession right of tenure holder extinguishes. Following was held in paragraph 4 - "4. To clarify the position, we may indicate the distinction that arises in cases where the only question is whether a suit of a particular nature, for which the period of limitation is prescribed has become time barred or not and a suit where right to property may be acquired by adverse possession over the prescribed period of time. The U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act does not make any provision for acquisition of rights by a tenure-holder by adverse possession. All it provides for is for suits for dispossession of persons taking wrongful possession and it is only after period of limitation for such suits expires and a suit becomes time barred that the right to bring suit would become extinguished with the consequential result that the right of the tenure-holder will also become extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908. " 16. At the relevant time limitation for filing the suit for ejectment of person taking or retaining possession of the land unlawfully was six years. With effect from 14-10-1971 the said period has been amended into 12 years. Now the question is that since respondent No. 4 was minor, what will be the period of limitation for a minor to bring a suit for ejectment under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. This question has been considered by Division Bench of our Court in 1987 Allahabad Law Journal 588, Parwan v. The U. P. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & others. This question has been considered by Division Bench of our Court in 1987 Allahabad Law Journal 588, Parwan v. The U. P. Board of Revenue, Allahabad & others. While considering the provision of Section 229-B, read with Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951, in the aforesaid case, the petitioner Parwan was a minor who attained majority on 1-3-1962. Suit was filed by him on 20-11-1966 complaining that his guardian committed fraud. The suit was filed under Section 209 read with Section 229-B of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. One of the issues raised in the case was bar of limitation. The Division Bench laid down in paragraphs 11 & 12 - " (11) Section 8, therefore, cannot be read in isolation. If Section 6 is applicable to a suit, then Section 8 is automatically dragged in. The two sections are not mutually exclusive. The suit under Section 209 of the Act cannot be instituted beyond three years after the plaintiff attained majority. The view to the contrary taken by this Court in Onkar Nath Dubey case, AIR 1977 NOC 4 and in Ram Kishore case, 1983 R D 62 (supra) cannot be said to have laid down the correct law. They are, therefore, overruled. (12) The suit filed by the petitioner was barred by time since it was beyond three years after he attained majority. " 17. In the present case, admittedly no suit was filed by respondent No. 4 under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. After issue of notification dated 29-4-1969 more than 8 years elapsed from attaining majority by respondent No. 4. Period of limitation as prescribed under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was six years, but since the respondents was under disability, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of Limitation Act which enable him to file the suit within three years from attaining majority. 18. Admittedly, petitioner did not file any suit after attaining majority within three years, the suit was barred by time and the petitioners objection under consolidation proceedings were also barred by time. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned judgment has held that at best adverse possession can be treated from 1967 when he took the sale deed. 18. Admittedly, petitioner did not file any suit after attaining majority within three years, the suit was barred by time and the petitioners objection under consolidation proceedings were also barred by time. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned judgment has held that at best adverse possession can be treated from 1967 when he took the sale deed. Prior to execution of sale deed Smt. Ganga Devi was in possession. There has been litigation between Smt. Ganga Devi with Smt. Kailasa, the mother of respondent No. 4 in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. which was held between Smt. Kailasa mother of respondent No. 5 and Smt. Ganga Devi, possession of Smt. Ganga Devi was found on 25-7-1955. Smt. Kailasa has also filed Civil Suit on behalf of Babu Ram as his mother and guardian with regard to properties other than disputed land being Suit No. 858 of 1955. 19. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot said that possession of Smt. Ganga Devi on land in dispute was on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 being out of possession was entitled to file a suit under Section 209 for taking possession within three year attaining majority. Now coming to the decision cited by Counsel for the respondent. The first decision relied by the respondent is AIR 1963 SC 70 , Padma Vitoba Chakkayya v. Mohd. Multani and another. 20. In the case before apex Court also, the apex Court affirmed the finding of the High Court that suit was instituted more than three years after the plaintiff has attained majority. Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the judgment notes the facts and the said contention: " (2) The learned District Munsif, Nirmal, who tried the suit held that as the endorsement of cancellation of the sale deed in favour of Rajanna was unregistered no title passed to the second defendant by reasons of that endorsement & that accordingly the sale by him in favour of the first defendant conferred no title on him and further that the suit had been instituted within three years of the plaintiffs attaining majority and that it was in time and so he decreed the suit. Against this judgment and decree there was an appeal by the respondents to the Additional District Court of Adilabad, which held that the plaintiff had not established that he had attained majority within three years of the suit and on that finding the appeal was allowed. The appellant took the matter in second appeal to the High Court of Hyderabad which agreeing with the District Judge, held that the suit was instituted more that three years after the plaintiff had attained majority and dismissed the appeal. It is against this judgment that the present appeal by special leave has been filed. (3) The first contention that is urged on behalf of the appellant is that the finding that the plaintiff had attained majority more than three years prior to the suit was erroneous. But there are concurrent findings on what is a question of fact, and we see no sufficient reason to differ from them. " The aforesaid judgment did not help the petitioner in any manner. 21. Next case relied by Counsel for the respondent is AIR 1948 Nagpur 253, Mt. Maltibai and another v. Wamanrao Sheoram and others. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that Nagpur High Court in the aforesaid judgment held that there cannot be adverse possession against a minor. The Nagpur High Court in the aforesaid judgment itself has laid down that there cannot be any general proposition that there cannot be adverse possession in property which belongs to minor and the question in each cases is to be decided with reference to the anterior relationship between the person taking possession and the minor. Following was held in paragraph 6: " (6) The plaintiffs contention that the suit is not barred by limitation rests almost entirely on the intention that there can be no adverse possession against a minor. That question was considered at length in 45 Mad. Following was held in paragraph 6: " (6) The plaintiffs contention that the suit is not barred by limitation rests almost entirely on the intention that there can be no adverse possession against a minor. That question was considered at length in 45 Mad. 361, and the conclusion of the learned Judges was that it cannot be stayed as a general proposition that there can be no adverse possession of property which belongs to a lunatic or minor during the continuance of the lunacy or minority of the owner, and that the question has in each case to be decided with reference to the anterior relationship between the person taking possession and the minor or lunatic and to whether any circumstances exist which would entitle the Court to hold that the person who entered into possession did so under circumstances which would in law make him only an agent or bailiff of the minor or lunatic. That decision has been followed or cited with approval in AIR 1982 Bom. 23, 57 Bom. 488, AIR 1945 Bom. 63 and AIR 1928 Oudh 481. Mr. Mungalmuri for the plaintiff-appellant referred us to certain remarks in AIR 1940 Cal. 589 and 57 Bom. 488, where it was said that adverse possession would not run against the plaintiffs during their minority, but those statements must be read in relation to the facts of those cases, and we do not think that there was any intention to lay down any general proposition. In LLR (1940) Kar. 534 Labo, J. after an analysis of the case law deduced the proposition that minority is no bar to the acquisition of title by adverse possession if the person claiming such adverse possession does not bear to the person against whom he claims it any anterior relationship such as that of agent, bailee, trustee, etc. Subsequently, however, he went on to say that he could not see how title by adverse possession could originate during the minority of the owner as no knowledge of the assertion of a hostile title could be attributed to him. It is not necessary that ouster should be brought to the notice of the competitor and it is sufficient if the possession is overt and without concealment so that the competitor, if be exercised due diligence ought to be aware of the ouster and in 48 Bom. It is not necessary that ouster should be brought to the notice of the competitor and it is sufficient if the possession is overt and without concealment so that the competitor, if be exercised due diligence ought to be aware of the ouster and in 48 Bom. 411, Lord Phillimore remarked that to assume that you cannot impute knowledge to a minor is a view which is certainly not in accordance with the facts of human nature. We, therefore, respectfully agree with the view taken in 45 Mad. 861 that there may be adverse possession against a minor. " 22. The aforesaid judgment do not support the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent that there can be no adverse possession against the minor. In the present case, it is unnecessary to consider the aforesaid submission any further in view of the fact that even after attaining the majority the suit was not filed within six years period which is period for bringing suit for possession under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. There having been civil and criminal litigation between the mother of respondent No. 4 and Smt. Ganga Devi, it cannot be accepted that possession of disputed land of Smt. Ganga Devi was on behalf of respondent No. 4. Moreover, after attaining the majority there was no excuse for respondent No. 3 to treat the possession of Ganga Devi on his behalf. 23. In any view of the matter, the objection filed by respondent No. 3 before consolidation authority was barred by time. The Consolidation Officer, in his judgment dated 13-5-1970 has recorded a clear finding that respondent No. 4 waited for more than 8 years after attaining majority in filing objection in the mutation case. The Consolidation Officer also held that respondent No. 4 was entitled to file suit within 3 years after attaining majority and he is debarred from moving for recovery of possession of land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither set aside the aforesaid finding of the Consolidation Officer nor has adverted to the said question. The Deputy Director of Consolidation only observed that unauthorised possession of petitioner at best begun in 1967. Possession of petitioner from 1967 was not determinative factor. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither set aside the aforesaid finding of the Consolidation Officer nor has adverted to the said question. The Deputy Director of Consolidation only observed that unauthorised possession of petitioner at best begun in 1967. Possession of petitioner from 1967 was not determinative factor. Smt. Ganga Devi who transferred the land in dispute to the petitioner having right to the land in dispute can very well transfer the property. The suit for taking possession against Ganga Devi was also barred. It is relevant to note that this Court while remanding the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide its judgment dated 19-4-1973 has made following observation: "the Consolidation Officer has recorded a clear finding that the disputed plots were the self acquisition of Smt. Ganga Devi and that the claim of respondent No. 4 was barred by limitation. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer on the sole ground that Smt. Ganga Devi had not appeared as a witness before the Consolidation Officer. This was obviously under some apprehension, Smt. Ganga Devi had appeared before the Consolidation Officer and a certified copy of her deposit on as has been filed as Annexure `3. The petition. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation did not record any finding on the question of adverse possession or limitation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, non suited the petitioner only on the ground that in the earlier mutation case, she had admitted that the disputed plots were tenancy of Raja Ram and in face of her admission she could not now claim that the disputed plots were her self acquisition. So the question of adverse possession, he only made a bald observation that it would be preposterous to believe that the possession of Smt. Ganga Devi was adverse to that of Babu Ram who was entitled to be recorded on the death of his father Raja Ram. He did not take into consideration the material circumstances which had weighed with the Consolidation Officer, namely, the various litigation between the other or respondent No. 4 and Smt. Ganga Devi. He did not take into consideration the material circumstances which had weighed with the Consolidation Officer, namely, the various litigation between the other or respondent No. 4 and Smt. Ganga Devi. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that the question of adverse possession after taking into consideration the long standing litigation between Smt. Ganga Devi on the one hand, in these circumstances, the consolidation officer recorded a finding that the possession of Smt. Ganga Devi could not be on behalf of the minor Raja Ram, respondent No. 4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely lost sight of these circumstances and he has not given a proper deal to this aspect of the matter. " 24. This Court observed that considering the question of nature of possession, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered various circumstances which weighed with the Consolidation Officer namely the various litigation between mother, respondent No. 4 and Smt. Ganga Devi. The various litigation between Ganga Devi and mother of respondent No. 4 makes it clear that possession of disputed land by Ganga Devi cannot be treated on behalf of respondent No. 4 and the possession being not on behalf of respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 was entitled to claim possession during the period of limitation prescribed under Section 209 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act read with Section 6 of Limitation Act. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also not adverted to the question as to whether claim of respondent No. 4 is barred by limitation. Adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner by Settlement Officer of Consolidation on the ground that Ganga Devi did not appear in witness box where as this Court in its earlier judgment has clearly found that Ganga Devi had appeared in the witness box on behalf of the petitioner. The statement of Ganga Devi dated 11-4-1970 has also been brought on the record as Annexure 8 to the supplementary affidavit dated 10-9-1997. The order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation also cannot be sustained. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-2-1975 as well as the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 15-1-1971 are set aside and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 13-5-1970 is upheld. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .