Arun Tandon, J.: - These two writ petitions have been filed by the same peti­tioners in respect of the same plot No. 136, village Minaura, District Jalaun. Therefore, both are being decided by means of this common judgment. 2. The facts in short are as follows : It is stated that the plot No. 135 was earlier numbered as plot No. 1060 and it was recorded in the name of the mother of the petitioner namely Ratan Kunwar. Pro­ceedings under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch, District Jalaun by the mother. The suit was decreed ex-parte. The judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate records that the de­fendant State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha have not contested the suit. The plaintiff have not filed any documentary proof about her being in cultivatory possession of the land as her Khudkast before the date of listing. She has become the Sirdar of the land by operation of law and the suit is being de­creed. 3. Mother of the petitioners is stated to have expired in the year 1974 and the village was notified for consolidation. The plot was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners filed objections which were rejected by the Consolidation Officer against which they filed an Appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolida­tion which was dismissed. Then a Revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was also similarly rejected on 28.2.1983. The petitioners are stated to have filed writ petition No. 135 of 1984 against the orders of the Consolida­tion Authorities wherein an interim order has been granted. Because of the order of the Consolidation Authorities, proceedings under section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act were undertaken and allotment of the land was made in favour of one Chandra Bhan. Petitioners, therefore, approached the Collector under section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of the Patta. This objection of the petitioners was rejected under the order dated 24.1.1994 by the Collector. Against the said order the petitioners filed writ petition No. 606 of 1994 on the ground that they have an stay order in his first petition wherein the order of the Consolidation Authorities has been stayed. 4. This objection of the petitioners was rejected under the order dated 24.1.1994 by the Collector. Against the said order the petitioners filed writ petition No. 606 of 1994 on the ground that they have an stay order in his first petition wherein the order of the Consolidation Authorities has been stayed. 4. From the facts on record, it is ap­parently' clear that the entire case of the petitioners in both the petitions is depend­ant upon the fate of writ petition No. 606 of 1994. The only ground pressed before this Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions is that in view of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in suit under section 229-B, referred to above, it is not open to the respondents to hold that the petitioners are not the Bhumidhar/Sirdar of the plot in question. Therefore, the order of the Con­solidation Authorities is illegal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the rec­ords of both the writ petitions. 6. The Deputy Director of Consoli­dation in his order dated 28.2.1983 has specifically noticed that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Suit No. 270 of 1979 in favour of the mother of the petitioners was admittedly an ex-parte or­der and further even if the findings re­corded are taken to be correct on its face value, no rights can accrue in favour of the mother of the petitioners or in favour of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has specifically noticed that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate rec­ords that along with plaint, no evidence was furnished for establishing that Ratan Kunwar had been cultivating the land as Khudkast since before the date of vesting. 7. No right as Bhumidhar/Sirdar can accrue even if the petitioners had deposited the requisite 10 times of the revenue for obtaining Bhumidhari certificate in view of section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as no Sirdari rights can be claimed in respect of Gaon Sabha land. 8. This Court finds that the reasons recorded by the Deputy Director of Con­solidation 28.2.1983 are strictly in accor­dance with law. Petitioners have hopelessly failed to establish as to under which provi­sion of law Bhumidhari/Sirdari could be claimed by the mother of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession in respect of Gram Sabha land. 9. 8. This Court finds that the reasons recorded by the Deputy Director of Con­solidation 28.2.1983 are strictly in accor­dance with law. Petitioners have hopelessly failed to establish as to under which provi­sion of law Bhumidhari/Sirdari could be claimed by the mother of the petitioners on the basis of adverse possession in respect of Gram Sabha land. 9. So far as the judgment in the case of Sheo Charat v. Tota Ram and others, 1970 RD 10. relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners is concerned, suffice is to record that the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable viz. a viz. the case in hand. 10. As noticed herein above, the peti­tioners cannot claim any Sirdari rights over the plot in question in view of section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Accordingly writ petition No. 135 of 1984 is dismissed. 11. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition No. 135 of 1984, there can be no order but to dismiss the writ petition No. 6064 of 1994 also. 12. Both the writ petitions are accord­ingly dismissed. Petitions Dismissed.