JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This writ petition was admitted on 20.2.1976 and an interim order was passed to the effect that till further orders of the Court, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. The said interim order is continuing till today. 2. Notices were issued to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are the contesting respondents and notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was accepted by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha but none has responded so far either by filing a counter affidavit or has assisted the Court when the matter has been taken in the revised call after 35 years of its institution. 3. The Court, therefore, has no option but to proceed with the matter keeping in view the report submitted by the Office that the notices sent to the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been despatched but neither the undelivered cover nor the acknowledgment has been received back. Accordingly, under the Rules of the Court, the notices on the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 will be deemed to have been served. Apart from this, now there is no occasion to await for any other mode of service after 35 years of the institution of the writ petition more so when the petitioners are in possession in terms of the interim order passed by this Court. In such a situation, it cannot be believed that the respondents had no notice about the pendency of the proceedings, inasmuch as, the petitioners must have filed the stay order before the authority to assert their possession. 4. The dispute relates to certain plots that were recorded in the name of Jamuna father of Ram Chandra. The respondent Ram Lochan filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 contending that since he was in possession over the land, he has perfected his title over the same and that a compromise had been entered into in a proceeding before the concerned Magistrate where the tenure holder had admitted the claim of possession and title of the contesting respondents. The Consolidation Officer after allowing the evidence to be led came to the conclusion that the objection deserves to be rejected and accordingly allowed, the names of the petitioners to continue to be recorded as the tenure holders. 5. The Consolidation Officer after allowing the evidence to be led came to the conclusion that the objection deserves to be rejected and accordingly allowed, the names of the petitioners to continue to be recorded as the tenure holders. 5. The dispute raised by the contesting respondents was essentially of Sirdari rights which was taken up in appeal by them before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation found that neither the names of the respondents were recorded in any of the revenue records prior to 1368 Fasli or after 1371 Fasli and, therefore, there claim of possession is not based on any documentary evidence. While discussing oral evidence, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation further found that the witnesses have said that they were in possession either for five years or seven years. In such a situation, the testimony of the witnesses was disbelieved and the appeal was dismissed as the tenure of possession was not sufficient to mature any rights claimed by the respondents. 6. The respondents went up in revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation virtually could not upturn the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation but carved out a new case and held that the parties have failed to prove possession, therefore, the land should be entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha. 7. This strange reasoning adopted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the opinion of the Court, is against the weight of evidence on record. Having perused the records and the material available, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is unsustainable, inasmuch as, he could not have travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties to carve out a new case and then to direct for recording of the name of the Gaon Sabha. The order dated 3rd September, 1975 is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed in the absence of the learned counsel for the parties. —————