Judgment Heard Sri Sarvesh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioners and leamed Standing Counsel for the respondents. None appears for respondents no. 5 to 15. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs : "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased: 1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling upon the opposite party no. 1 to produce the record of Revision no. 581 of 73-74 and its connected records and to quash the orders of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 dated 13-9-1974, 12-1-1972 and 27-12-1971 respectively. 2. To issue such a writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case so that justice be done. 3. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner in the aforesaid case. " 3. Briefly stated, the petitioners have filed the objections under Section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that in the basic year entries, the name of the petitioner no. 1 is entered in Zaman IV and the petitioner no. 1 should be recorded as Sirdar over the land in dispute. 4. According to the case of the petitioners, the plots in dispute were originally recorded in the name of the respondent third set by the orders of A.R.O., but the names of the respondents third set were removed from the Village records as they were shown absconding. 5. Petitioners have submitted that they were in possession of the land in dispute since 1364 Fasli as such, they filed a Suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the respondent third set, which was abated by the orders of the Revenue Court on 16-02-1970 after coming into force of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1971. 6. Petitioners have filed a copy of extract of Khasra regarding Plot no. 87 which shows that the petitioners are recorded in occupation since 1364 Fasli and regarding Plot No. 57 since 1366 Fasli. 7. During the consolidation proceedings the petitioners filed the Rent Receipts as well as Khasra relating to 12 years. The oral and documentary evidence was also produced. 8. 87 which shows that the petitioners are recorded in occupation since 1364 Fasli and regarding Plot No. 57 since 1366 Fasli. 7. During the consolidation proceedings the petitioners filed the Rent Receipts as well as Khasra relating to 12 years. The oral and documentary evidence was also produced. 8. The petitioners have also examined themselves and two witnesses who have corroborated the above said Khasra entries and stated that the said plots originally belong to the respondent third set, but the same is in their possession and the petitioners have acquired sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 9. The Consolidation Officer consolidated vide order dated 27th December, 1971 dismissed the petitioner no. 1's objections. The predecessor of the petitioners preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 1519 and by judgment dated 12-01-1972, the appeal was dismissed. 10. Thereafter, predecessor of the petitioners preferred revision before respondent no.1 bearing revision no. 581 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13-09-1974. 11 . During the pendency of the revision the predecessor of the petitioners filed an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation stating that the name of the respondents third set be also impleaded in array of the respondents as the said persons are still alive and they may have the possible claim against the petitioners whereas the Gaon Sabha had no claim. 12. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said application was not disposed of by the respondent no. 1. 13. According to the counsel for the petitioners entry of Farar of the true owners is absolutely wrong in as much as in the said Khata of the said tenure holder being Plot No. 57 area 4.20 and Plot No. 87 area 26 of Khata NO.103 Asha Ram and others have been recorded as 'Farar' and as such the entry of 'Farar' as well as the conversion of Class 4 in Class-9 both are against the evidence on the record. 14. Petitioners have submitted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has wrongly given the benefit in respect of one of the Khatas only. 15. A perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer while disposing of the objections under Section 9-A(2) a direction has been issued expunging the name of the Gaon Sabha. 16. 14. Petitioners have submitted that the Settlement Officer Consolidation has wrongly given the benefit in respect of one of the Khatas only. 15. A perusal of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer while disposing of the objections under Section 9-A(2) a direction has been issued expunging the name of the Gaon Sabha. 16. The revisional court has further recorded a finding that the petitioners cannot get rights against the Gaon Sabha till 1377 Fasli which is the basic year. 17. Petitioners have submitted that taking into consideration that the respondent third set have been recorded as 'Farar', Gaon Sabha has started claiming his rights in the land in dispute, but the petitioners have disputed the said fact. He has submitted that the respondents no. 5 to 15 are residing in the village and have another Khata which is recorded in their names and they are continuously paying their rent, therefore, it is wholly impossible to say that the respondent third set have become 'Farar'. 18. It has further been submitted that proceedings under Section 187 -A 9f the Act has not been initiated by the Collector. 19. Further it has been submitted that the respondent no. 4 has no right of re-entry and the status of any person including the respondent no. 4 would be that of a trespasser under Section 188 of the Act. 20. Admittedly U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act came into force on 1st July, 1969 i.e. 1377 Fasli and as such he has perfected his rights by remaining in possession. No suit was filed by the original tenure holder Asha Ram and others within limitation as prescribed under Section 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and as such he has perfected his rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 21. In Avtar Singh and another Vs. Prescribed Authority and others 1981 All. L.J. 1008 reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of Harman Roy Vs.Deputy Director of Consolidation 1973 ALJ Page 612, where the Division Bench has observed as under:- "4. A finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioners came in possession in 1376 F and their claim, that they had been in possession from a much longer period since prior to 1376 F, has not been accepted by the authorities below. A finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioners came in possession in 1376 F and their claim, that they had been in possession from a much longer period since prior to 1376 F, has not been accepted by the authorities below. In such a finding of fact, based on appraisal of evidence, no interference is called for in this writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even on the said finding, in law, the petitioners had perfected their title before 8-6-1973 and in this connection, it was contended that admittedly the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act, 1950, came into force in this area on 1st July, 1969, i.e. with effect from 1377 F. Therefore, the petitioners had been in possession for a period of one year when the said UP. Act NO.1 of 1951 came into force. The learned counsel contended that in such a situation, CI. (1) of serial No. 30 of Appendix III to the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, was applicable. This clause on the relevant date of the suit and the period had to be computed from the date of vesting. Therefore, computing from the date of vesting in this area i.e. from 1st July, 1969, the period of three years expired on 1st July, 1972. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners rights stood matured on 1st July, 1972 in terms of S. 210, UP. Act No. 1 of 1951. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a Division Bench pronouncement reported in Hanuman Rai II. Deputy Director of consolidation, (1973 All LJ 612). The Division Bench laid down as follows:- (atp. 613) "For the appellant it was urged that under S. 209 a suit could be filed by a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami where a person takes or retains possession of land forming a part of the holding of bhumidhar, sirdar or asami. A holding could not in law be of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami before the date of vesting. So a suit under S. 209 was not maintainable in relation to persons who were in possession of such land from before the date of vesting. We are unable to agree. Section 209 applies to a person taking as well as to a person retaining possession of land. So a suit under S. 209 was not maintainable in relation to persons who were in possession of such land from before the date of vesting. We are unable to agree. Section 209 applies to a person taking as well as to a person retaining possession of land. A person who has taken possession before the date of vesting and continues in possession is a person who is retaining possession of land after the date of vesting. With effect from the date of vesting the land forms part of the holding of the bhumidhar, sirdar and asami and hence the suit for ejectment of such a person can be filed on the basis that he was retaining possession of land forming part of such holding. Entry No. 30 of Appendix III specifically provides a period of limitation of two years from the date of vesting for a suit for the ejectment of a person in possession of the land on the date of vesting. It cannot hence be said that a suit for the ejectment of the respondents was not maintainable under S. 209. " 22. Petitioners have filed an extract of Khasra regarding plot No. 87, which shows that they are in occupation since 1364 Fasli and with regard to Plot No. 56 the petitioners are in occupation since 1366 Fasli. The petitioners, therefore, have been found in possession over the land for the last 12 years. 23. Consequently, a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13-09-1974 as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 12-01-1972 to the extent of Plot No. 87 (0.26) and 57 (4.20) Village Baksaura, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar only and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 27-12-1971 is also quashed. 24. The matter is remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above. 25. In view of the aforesaid observations, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.