JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.: - Heard Sri A.S. Chudhary, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings pertaining to title dispute. Agricultural land in dispute initially belonged to Ramadhin. Original petitioner No.1, Mathura was his grand son. As father of Mathura had died during life time of his father Ramadhin, hence on the death of Ramadhin, name of Mathura was mutated over the agricultural land in dispute in 1363 Fasli (1955-56 A.D.). Thereafter, over some of the plots forming part of the agricultural land inherited by Mathura from his grand-father, names of different contesting opposite parties were mutated. When consolidation started in the area in question, 19 objections were filed, some by Mathura and some by some of the contesting respondents of this writ petition. Some of the contesting respondents had claimed right over some of the plots on the basis of sale deeds by Mathura, some on the basis of adverse possession, some claimed on the basis of compromise and some on the basis of earlier court orders. Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh through order dated 10.08.1969 decided all the objections, which had been registered as Case No.6117 and others. Against the said order, four appeals were filed being Appeals No.7187/482, 7183/485, 7269/485 and 7018/483. First appeal was filed by Mathura, the second by Babu Lal, original opposite party No.4, third by Awadesh Singh and others, opposite parties No.8 and others, fourth by Nackchhed Singh, original opposite party No.21. Assistant S.O.C., Pratapgarh dismissed all the appeals through order dated 08.09.1972. The appellants therefore filed four revisions being Revisions No.7473, 7478, 7475 and 8040. D.D.C., Pratapgarh dismissed first three revisions, however Revision No.8040 filed by Babu Lal was allowed partly and the orders of the courts below in respect of plot Nos.245 and 248 were set aside and the said plots were directed to be entered in the khata of applicant Babu Lal as in the basic year. Against the said order of the D.D.C., two writ petitions were filed. One is the instant writ petition and the other was Writ Petition No.680 (Consolidation) of 1976, which was filed by Babu Lal in respect of that part of revisional court's order through which his revision had been dismissed in part. The said writ petition has already been decided. 3. One is the instant writ petition and the other was Writ Petition No.680 (Consolidation) of 1976, which was filed by Babu Lal in respect of that part of revisional court's order through which his revision had been dismissed in part. The said writ petition has already been decided. 3. The C.O. had framed ten issues and decided six issues, i.e. issues No.1 to 5 and 7 together. The first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners is that each of the said issues related to different plots claimed by different persons on different grounds hence each of the aforesaid issues should have been tried separately. First of all strict principles of pleadings, issues and judgments as provided under C.P.C. are not applicable to the consolidation proceedings. Secondly, the said issues had something in common, hence there was no harm in deciding the said issues jointly. 4. This writ petition was filed by Mathura, his son Suraj Bali minor under the guardian-ship of his mother Smt. Koela and Smt. Koela wife of Mathura. Petitioner No.1 was described as Mathura Fatrul (insane). Mathura had executed several sale deeds. All the courts below categorically held that Mathura was not insane or mad. During pendency of the writ petition, Mathura died and was substituted by his son Ram Bali Suraj Bali, petitioner No.2 also died. 5. There was absolutely no dispute that property initially belonged to Ramadhin grand-father of Mathura. Smt. Koela wife of Mathura examined herself as witness before C.O. and stated that no medicine was given to Mathura. Mathura was neither treated nor given any medicine for his alleged madness. Smt. Koela stated that Mathura was mad for nine years, however his witness stated that he was mad for two years. Absolutely no written document regarding treatment like prescription etc. was filed. Mathura had appeared as witness in some earlier cases copies of which were filed before the Consolidation Officer, the statements were given in 1961, 1962. Mathura was contesting those cases until 1962. Mathura was not examined before the C.O. The C.O. therefore under issue No.10 held that Mathura was not of unsound mind. In respect of unsoundness of Mathura's mind, courts below also mentioned that in 1967 Mathura was punished in a criminal case. 6. Mathura was contesting those cases until 1962. Mathura was not examined before the C.O. The C.O. therefore under issue No.10 held that Mathura was not of unsound mind. In respect of unsoundness of Mathura's mind, courts below also mentioned that in 1967 Mathura was punished in a criminal case. 6. Thereafter, under the several issues decided together it was also held as far as land of khata No.178 was concerned, it was entered in the name of Babu Lal. There was some dispute inter se in between the opposite parties also and on different plots of the said khata, different parties claimed right. 7. Regarding two sale deeds dated 08.09.1960 and 26.09.1960 Smt. Koela had filed suit for cancellation before Civil Court, which was decreed, however appeal against the same abated due to start of the consolidation by notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act. The argument of learned counsel for petitioners that even though appeal had abated but the findings recorded by the trial court/ Musnif could not altogether to be ignored is utterly untenable. When appeal had abated, no finding recorded by the trial court could be taken into consideration by the consolidation authorities. Reference to Sheo Charan Vs. Tota Ram, 1970 RD 103 (para-15) and 1994 (2) Suppl. SCC 228 is misplaced. Even the civil court had decreed the suit only on the ground that the property was joint. C.O. also held that the son of Mathura had died long before hence Mathura was the sole sirdar/ bhoomdhar of the entire land. 8. Possession of Lal Bahadur was also mentioned in the khasra 1369 Fasli. The claim of Nackchhed Singh, opposite party No.21 in respect of plots No.248, 206 and 199 was not found proved by the C.O. It was also held that Ramadhin never left the land in their favour. The dispute between Lal Bahadur and Nakchhed Singh is no more res integra as Nakchhed Singh did not file any writ petition. Similarly, dispute between Lal Bahadur Singh and Babu Lal is also not in dispute in the instant writ petition. No dispute inter se between the contesting opposite parties is relevant to be decided in this writ petition. The dispute between Lal Bahadur and Nakchhed Singh is no more res integra as Nakchhed Singh did not file any writ petition. Similarly, dispute between Lal Bahadur Singh and Babu Lal is also not in dispute in the instant writ petition. No dispute inter se between the contesting opposite parties is relevant to be decided in this writ petition. In respect of land of khata No.178, the Consolidation Officer held that before Judicial Officer, Pratapgarh compromise was entered into in between Mathura and Babu Lal and on the basis of the compromise name of Mathura was expunged and the name of Babu Lal was entered and it was also mentioned by the C.O. that decree for eviction under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had also been passed. 9. The issues, which were jointly decided by the C.O. mainly related to inter se disputes of opposite parties. As far as Mathura is concerned, the only thing, which was decided against him under the said issues was that he had entered into compromise before Judicial Officer, Pratapgarh in respect of land of khata No.178 with Babu Lal. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that through the compromise in mutation proceedings right can not be conferred or created and in this regard reference has been made to Raja Ram Vs. D.D.C., 2006 RD 121 and Saral Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue, 2007 RD 54. Through compromise title cannot be conferred. However, the assertion of the other side is that through compromise his title was only accepted. Through compromise fresh rights may not be created but existing rights can be accepted. 11. In respect of right of Budhaee, original opposite party No.22 under issue No.8 & 9, the C.O. held that over plot Nos.247, 249, 246/4 etc. right of Budhaee was recognised by panchayat adalat through order dated 21.02.1954 and it was a case between Budhaee and Mathura, hence it operated as res judicata against Mathura. Parties had agreed to abide by panchayat order. On the said basis, Budhaee was declared as sirdar of the said plots. Apart from it over plot No.198 and 208 name of Budhaee was already there. Regarding that the C.O. held that no evidence was led to show that right of Budhaee was extinguished. 12. Parties had agreed to abide by panchayat order. On the said basis, Budhaee was declared as sirdar of the said plots. Apart from it over plot No.198 and 208 name of Budhaee was already there. Regarding that the C.O. held that no evidence was led to show that right of Budhaee was extinguished. 12. Regarding Awadesh Narain Singh and others, the C.O. held that they wanted right over plots No.247 and 249, however they had failed to show their possession. Their claim was rejected. Same thing was held in respect of plot No.206. Regarding possession, it was also held that for the first time their name was mentioned in khasra of 1368 Fasli. Same thing was held regarding Awadesh Singh, original opposite party No.8. S.O.C. has mentioned that Budhaee had claimed that Ramadhin after the death of his first wife contacted another marriage and Budhaee was son of second wife of Mathura from her previous husband, hence Ramadhin had given land to him. 13. As far as validity of order on compromise by panchayat court is concerned, nothing has been said against the said order in the grounds of the writ petition, hence this question need not be decided. 14. The argument that on sirdari land rights cannot accrue through adverse possession has not been taken in the grounds of writ petition. They appear to be finding about the dispute inter se between the opposite parties. In any case by virtue of Section 210 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as it stood at the relevant time rights of Sirdari could also be acquired by adverse possession. It was provided thereunder that if a Sirdar did not file suit for possession, after his dispossession, under Section 209 of the Act within the limitation then his rights would be extinguished and become Sirdar of the land. Reference to Privy Council authority reported in Madhavrao Waman Saundalgekar Vs. R.V. Deshpande, 1923 PC 205 is misplaced. Under the Act which was considered in the said case transfer was absolutely prohibited and there was no provision of accrual of title of a person in adverse possession under the said Act. 15. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the D.D.C. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.