RAKESH SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Seiner advocate, assisted by Sarvasri Kunal Ravi Singh, Ramesh Singh and R. S. Maurys learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are represented by Sarvasri o. P Misra and Praaeep Chandra. ( 2 ) THROUGH this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders passed by the three Consolidation authorities, that is, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, rendered on 24. 12. 1973, disposing of the Revision, order of the Settlement Officer, kanpur, dated 9. 7. 1973, dismissing the Appeal of the petitioners and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur, dated 21. 4. 1973, allowing the Suit preferred by Rajendra etc. sons of Kanhaiya Lal. All the three Consolidation Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact allowing claim put-forth by the respondent nos. 4 to 7, sons of Kanhaiya Lal. ( 3 ) IN the present case, initially the proceedings were initiated under Section 9-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of Plot Nos. 1110, 1206, 1209, 1216 and 1217, having an area of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa in Khata No. 251, situate in Village Hiraman, Sibali, Pargana Akbarpur, District Kanpur. ( 4 ) THE petitioners claim that as a consequence of consolidation proceedings, the aforementioned land has become as part of their Chak, while three Consolidation courts have held that the said land is Sirdari land of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the sons of original tenure-holder, Kanhaiya Lal. ( 5 ) SRI V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has reiterated the submissions put-forth before the three Consolidation Courts and taken this Court to the history of the dispute right from 1942 till date and read the judgments rendered by various Courts. Much stress has been laid by him that the consolidation scheme has been confirmed and possession was delivered in pursuance thereof to the Chakholders in the Village. According to him, right, title and interest of Kanhaiya Lal, who was said to be a sub-tenant were extinguished on 27. 6. 1944, when he was ejected from the plots in Suit, in pursuance of the decree of the Sub Divisional Officer. According to him, right, title and interest of Kanhaiya Lal, who was said to be a sub-tenant were extinguished on 27. 6. 1944, when he was ejected from the plots in Suit, in pursuance of the decree of the Sub Divisional Officer. According to the learned Senior Advocate, no adhiwasi right could accrue under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1952, as Kanhaiya Lal was not a sub-tenant on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. ( 6 ) AS per learned counsel for the petitioners, admittedly, Kanhaiya Lal was not recorded in any Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasali and could not have been treated to be having Adhiwasi rights. It was stressed before the Court that he was merely a licensee of the plots and his license came to an end when he failed in suit or when the possession was obtained by the predecessors -in- interest of the petitioners over the land in dispute. The land was given to Kanhaiya Lal etc. for their sustenance and to cultivate the same for a specified period. They were not having any right, title or interest in the land. The sons of Kanhaiya Lal could not have been permitted to change their pleas before the Consolidation authorities that Kanhaiya Lal became Adhiwasi as he was a sub-tenant of the plot in question. All the three Consolidation Courts have erred in holding that he became Adhiwasi and thereafter Sirdar of the land in dispute after advent of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and issuance of notification of 1954. ( 7 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondents on various grounds Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have submitted that all the three consolidation Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact. It was highlighted that in 1346 Fasali and 1347 Fasali revenue entries, the father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was recorded as a sub-tenant for very long and substantial period of about 52-53 years and, therefore, in the year 1948 because of 53 years of co-tenancy his name was also recorded in Khatauni 1311 Fasali wherein he was recorded as sub-tenant. In other revenue entries, name of Kanhaiya Lal had remained recorded throughout being a sub-tenant. He became Adhiwasi and consequently acquired sirdari rights by operation of law. In other revenue entries, name of Kanhaiya Lal had remained recorded throughout being a sub-tenant. He became Adhiwasi and consequently acquired sirdari rights by operation of law. These relevant revenue entries remained unchallenged and uncontroverted and Kanhaiya Lal continued to cultivate the land in dispute for a long period of 58 years which fact regarding cultivation of land by Kanyhaiya Lal for about 58 years cannot be ignored by the Courts. ( 8 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the judgments of Courts below. ( 9 ) IT emerges from the record that Sadhoram and Devi Prasad being real brothers were recorded as tenants of an holding having an area of 19 Bighas. Kanhaiya Lal, who was father of Babu Ram, Ram Sanehi, Rajendra and Vijai narain, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, was in possession of 4 Bigha, 11 Biswa land for a long time. The litigation between the contesting parties started at the instance of Devi Prasad, father of Sheo Dayal and Mohan Lal, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, in the present case, on 13th July, 1942 by filing a formal application, under Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act seeking ejectment of Kanhaiya Lal, father of respondent nos. 4 to 7, who was recorded as a sub-tenant in respect of land in dispute. It was also alleged in the said application that a private partition had taken place between Devi Prasad and Sadho Ram, father of petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5, Shanker lal, Sunder Lal and Sheo Kumar. The land, upon which Kanhaiya Lal was in possession as a sub tenant, had fallen in the share of Devi Prasad. Sadho Ram was given other plots due to which Sadho Ram had refused to join Devi Prasad in the litigation and, therefore, he was impleaded as a Defendant. But, in the present case, as indicated above, Sadho Rams sons are indicated as petitioners. Lateron, sadho Ram came forward and supported the case of Devi Prasad. ( 10 ) KANHAIYA, Lal filed objections to the said application and pleaded cotenancy with Devi Prasad. The said application was converted into a Suit and was dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer for adjudication. On 11th September, 1942, devi Prasad changed his stand by filing an application indicating therein that kanhaiya Lal was not sub tenant, but only a licensee. The said application was converted into a Suit and was dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer for adjudication. On 11th September, 1942, devi Prasad changed his stand by filing an application indicating therein that kanhaiya Lal was not sub tenant, but only a licensee. He withdrew his Suit, filed under Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, but no permission was accorded to him to file another Suit on the same cause of action. Devi Prasad again initiated litigation by filing another suit in the month of September, 1942, under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. He had taken a plea that license given to Kanhaiya lal had been withdrawn and, therefore, he was a trespasser and as such he could be ejected from the land in dispute. ( 11 ) KANHAIYA Lal had contested the said Suit urging that his ancestors were co-tenants with the ancestors of Devi Prasad and Sadho Ram. A private partition had taken place, between them and the impunged holding of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa had fallen in his share. He had been cultivating his own share. Even if he was a trespasser, he was in adverse possession without any challenge for more than 12 years at the time of initiation of litigation, that is, in the year 1942. According to him the Suit was barred by law of limitation. Kanhaiya Lal claimed that he was a sub-tenant and as such he could be ejected. The said Suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff-Devi Prasad had withdrawn previous Suit, filed under Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Acton 13th July, 1942 without having any permission of any competent Court to institute a fresh Suit for the same cause of action. ( 12 ) ON 25th March, 1943, the Suit filed by Devi Prasad was dismissed by the sub-Divisional Officer. An appeal was preferred by Devi Prasad before the Additional commissioner claiming that if Kanhiaya Lal was not a trespasser and could not be ejected under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, he could be ejected under section 175 of the said Act as he was a sub tenant. This appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 27. 10. 1943, remanding the Suit for retrial to the sub Divisional Officer/deputy Collector. This appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on 27. 10. 1943, remanding the Suit for retrial to the sub Divisional Officer/deputy Collector. The Additional Commissioner had also directed that the Zamindar of the Village and the sons of Sadho Ram be also impleaded as plaintiffs. ( 13 ) SUB-DIVISIONAL Officer/deputy Collector had again held that Kanhaiya Lal was a sub-tenant and not a trespasser and, therefore, granted decree for ejectment on 31st May, 1944, under Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Kanhaiya Lal preferred an Appeal, which was dismissed. However, it was held in the order dated 10th January, 1946 that he was a sub-tenant, not a trespasser. A Second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed on 8. 9. 1956. While the Appeal had remained pending before the Board of Revenue, in the meantime, U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force with effect from 1st July, 1952. ( 14 ) AGGRIEVED by the decision of the Board of Revenue, dated 8th September, 1956, Kanhaiya Lal filed a writ petition, that is. Writ Petition No. 1335 of 1957, kanhaiya Lal v. Dew Prasad and others represented by Legal Heirs and Legal representatives in this Court. In the said writ petition, two main questions were raised, which were also raised before the Board of Revenue, (i) whether the second suit decreed, under Section 175 of the U. P. Tenancy Act could have been decreed as it was clearly hit by the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure? and (ii) whether Kanhaiya Lal, who had been found to be a sub-tenant by the Court below had by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 (a) (ii) of the P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 acquired Adhiwasi rights? This court has also observed on merits of the case that it could be possible to say that the provision of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be interpreted in the manner in which that provision had been interpreted by the Courts below and two opinions were possible to be formed by the Courts below. It was also observed by the Court that the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal, was held to be a subtenant on the date of Suit. His status, while pursuing the litigations, throughout was of a sub-tenant. It was also observed by the Court that the petitioner, Kanhaiya Lal, was held to be a subtenant on the date of Suit. His status, while pursuing the litigations, throughout was of a sub-tenant. The Board of Revenue was required to record reasons as to why Kanhaiya Lal could not acquire Adhiwasi rights as per Section 20 (a) (ii) of the u. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This Court vide this judgment dated 17th October, 1962 had allowed the writ petition and directed the Board of Revenue to restore the Appeal and reconsider the matter afresh. A Special Appeal was preferred against this judgment by Sheo Dayal and Devi Prasad etc. In the Special appeal judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 17th October, 1962 was upheld, remanding the matter to the Board of Revenue for taking a fresh look. ( 15 ) IT is relevant to mention here that, while this litigation was going on, consolidation proceedings were initiated in the concerned Village and the proceedings pending in the Suit including execution proceedings stood abated under Section 5 (2)oftheu. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is borne out of the record that Kanhaiya Lal was treated to be a sub-tenant right from 1943 to 1947 by the Revenue Courts, Board of Revenue and thereafter by this Court. Therefore, on commencement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 1st July, 1952, at the time vesting, Kanhaiya Lal was to be treated as a sub-tenant. Thus, a dispute arose before the Consolidation Courts as to whether sub-tenancy could accrue to Kanhaiya Lal or he became Adhiwasi and therafter a Sirdar as per the relevant provisions as contained in U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. ( 16 ) IN the consolidation proceedings, the sons of Kanhaiya Lal, that is, rajendra etc. filed objections under Section 9-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings act before the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur claiming themselves to be Sirdars of 4 Bigha 11 Biswa of land and sought parity with Devi Prasad etc. , who were recorded as Sirdars of Khata No. 251. ( 17 ) AFTER going through the chronology of above events, the sons of Kanhaiya lal claimed that the original tenureholder, that is, their father became an Adhiwasi under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. , who were recorded as Sirdars of Khata No. 251. ( 17 ) AFTER going through the chronology of above events, the sons of Kanhaiya lal claimed that the original tenureholder, that is, their father became an Adhiwasi under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As he was a Shikmi Kashtkar, by virtue of notification of 1954, Kanhaiya Lal now his sons became Sirdars of the land (that is 4 Bigha 11 Biswa ). During pendency of the litigation, the tenure holder Kanhaiya Lal had died and in his place his sons, babu Ram, Ram Sanehi, Rajendra and Vijai Narain could claim Sirdari rights over the land in dispute. ( 18 ) THE Consolidation Officer had considered the rival claims and recorded his findings running into 16 pages. The Consolidation Officer, after taking note of chronology of events, history of the title, settlement of the land right from 1942, during Zamindari regime, during the course of litigation in various Courts, that is, deputy Collectors Court, Additional Commissioners Court, Board of Revenue and High Court has held that Kanhaiya Lal was not mere a licensee, rather a shikmi Kashtkar. He has taken note of Intkhabs of 1347 and 1348 Fasali. It was recorded by the Consolidation Officer that Kanhaiya Lal was a Shikmi Kashtkar for 59 years, paying rent (Lagan) of 21 Rupees. The Consolidation Officer has relied upon old, unchallenged and uncontroverted revenue entries of 1347 and 1348 Fasali. Neither Sheo Dayal and Sadho Ram had challenged these entries. In fact, they were only interested in ejectment of Kanhaiya Lal from the land in dispute. Even in the First and Second Appeals, Kanhaiya Lal was treated as shikmi Kashtkar. ( 19 ) THE Consolidation authorities on applying the provisions contained in section 295 of the U. P. Tenancy Act had held that after 1947, Kanhaiya Lal was entitled to continue with the possession of the land in dispute. Even after enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he became Adhiwasi and as such Kanhaiya Lal was entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute. Even after enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he became Adhiwasi and as such Kanhaiya Lal was entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Courts had taken note of various decisions to record a finding that a Shikmi Kashtkar, even if he was dispossessed before 1947 and the first or Second Appeals were pending in respect of the land, such cultivator/ tenureholder shall be treated as Shikmi Kashtkar and his possession shall be restored back. ( 20 ) IN the present ease also, the litigation was going on right from 1942 to 1971, various litigations were filed in the Courts of Deputy Collector, Additional commissioner, Board of Revenue and in this Court, but the dispute could not be resolved. Admittedly, the Second Appeal was filed by Kanhaiya Lal in the Board of Revenue in the year 1946, which was dismissed on 8. 9. 1956. Thus, in view of this, all the three Consolidation Courts have held that Kanhaiya Lal was entitled for possession under Section 295 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, as amended in 1947. He was held entitled to be delivered possession of the land in dispute treating him to be a Shikmi Kashtkar. The Consolidation Courts have held that as per the various provisions contained in Section 20 (a) (ii) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, Kanhaiya Lal being a Shikmi Kashtkar became Adhiwasi. He was entitled for the benefit arising out of notification of 1954, declaring such Shikmi kashtkars (Cultivators) as Sirdars having substantial legal rights. Even if the possession was taken from Kanhaiya Lal, his status as Shikmi Kashtkar and thereafter as Sirdar would not stand changed. Law is well settled that till pendency of the litigation, even if a person is dispossessed, it cannot be said that it will adversely affect his rights since the possession or such rights were subject to final outcome of adjudication. ( 21 ) AS per chronology of events, litigations were pending and Kanhaiya Lal and other contesting parties were awaiting decision of the competent Courts, which would have affected their rights in respect of the agricultural land in dispute. The appeal filed by Kanhaiya Lal was disposed of on 8. 9. 1956. ( 21 ) AS per chronology of events, litigations were pending and Kanhaiya Lal and other contesting parties were awaiting decision of the competent Courts, which would have affected their rights in respect of the agricultural land in dispute. The appeal filed by Kanhaiya Lal was disposed of on 8. 9. 1956. Initially, he was a shikmi Kashtkar, while by efflux of law, he became Adhiwasi and thereafter by virtue of notification of 1954 became Sirdar of the land in dispute and after the death of Kanhaiya Lal, his sons, respondent Nos. 4 to 7, herein, became Sirdars. The Consolidation Courts have held that Section 232 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would not be applicable in the present set of circumstances as it was a case where a Shikmi Kashtkar became an Adhiwasi and lateron became Sirdar of the land by efflux of law, that is, U. P. Tenancy Act as amended in 1947 and the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the notification issued in 1954. ( 22 ) ALL the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and law and dealt with the submissions. All the Courts below, including the Deputy Director of consolidation, who while exercising powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has affirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Revisional Court, after taking note of the chronology of events and appreciating the law on the subject as well as the materials available on record has held that Kanhaiya Lal and thereafter his sons were Sirdars of the land in dispute and they were entitled for possession over the land in dispute. ( 23 ) THIS Court has taken note of the above chronology of events, rival submissions put forth by the learned counsel of rival parties and is of the view that kanhaiya Lal and after his death his sons shall be deemed to be in possession as a sub-tenant on the date of vesting. The litigation between the contesting parties had all along remained pending during which Kanhaiya Lal was recorded as a sub-tenant in the revenue entries, as indicated above, and was cultivating the land in dispute for about 52 to 53 years and as such he could have been deprived of his legal rights. The litigation between the contesting parties had all along remained pending during which Kanhaiya Lal was recorded as a sub-tenant in the revenue entries, as indicated above, and was cultivating the land in dispute for about 52 to 53 years and as such he could have been deprived of his legal rights. All the three Consolidation Courts had rightly taken note that sub tenancy rights of Kanhaiya Lal could not have come to an end as he became Adhiwasi on the date of vesting and lateron he acquired Sirdari rights by efflux of law. At the time of vesting, being a Shikmi Kashtkar, he became Adhiwasi and thereafter had rightly been held by the Consolidation Courts that as a result of application of provisions contained in the notification of 1954, he became Sirdar of the land in dispute. ( 24 ) THE Consolidation Officer has recorded a detailed finding running in about 15 16 pages. The Appellate authority has also dealt with the case in detail and recorded findings and conclusions adjudging all the facts and legal points pleaded by the parties. Oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record were carefully considered by all the three Consolidation Courts, while setting at rest the controversy. The legal rights accrued to Kanhaiya Lal and thereafter to his legal heirs and legal representatives by virtue of U. P. Tenancy (Amendment)Act, 1947 and the provisions contained in U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act as well as the notification of 1954 cannot be taken away. It was found by all the three Consolidation Courts that Kanhaiya Lal was in possession over the land in dispute for about 52-53 years and as such he had acquired substantial and legal rights. He could not have been ejected from the land in dispute for a period of five years. Admittedly, the litigations remained pending before various Courts right from 1942 to 1971. The Board of Revenue had concluded the case in the year 1966. By that time, the aforementioned statutes already came into existence extending benefits on the cultivators, like Kanhaiya Lal and his legal heirs. Thus, kanhaiya Lal and lateron his sons, that is, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 became Sirdars of the land in dispute. The Board of Revenue had concluded the case in the year 1966. By that time, the aforementioned statutes already came into existence extending benefits on the cultivators, like Kanhaiya Lal and his legal heirs. Thus, kanhaiya Lal and lateron his sons, that is, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 became Sirdars of the land in dispute. ( 25 ) MY this view finds strength from a judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 54 , Amba Prasad v. Mohaboob Ali Shah and others, where in Paragraph 16, the Honble Apex Court has observed as follows: "speaking generally, Section 20 says that certain persons "recorded as occupants" of lands (other than grove lands or lands to which Section 16 applies) shall be known as adhivasis and shall be entitled to retain or to regain possession of them, after the date of vesting, which was July 1, 1952. Such persons do not include an intermediary (Explanation IV ). Such persons must be recorded as occupants in Khasra or Khatauni for 1356f (1-748 to 30-6-49 ). If such a person is in possession, he continues in possession. If he is evicted after June 30, 1948, he is to be put back in possession, notwithstanding anything in any order or decree. By fiction such persons are deemed to be entitled to regain possession (Explanation 1 ). . . . . . . . . . " ( 26 ) MY view further finds force from a judgment of a Division Bench of this court reported in 1964 ALJ 273, Jhamman Lal and others v. Deputy Custodian general and others. In yet another judgment as reported in 1955 ALJ 408, Lala nanak Chand v. The Board of Revenue U. P. at Allahabad and another similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court. ( 27 ) IN view of the discussions made above, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, fails and is accordingly, dismissed. ( 28 ) NO order as to costs. .