JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Azad Khan, for the petitioner and Sri I.D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.02.1981, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of plot 1095 (area 4-15-0 bigha), 1154 (area 0-9-0 bigha), 1559 (area 4-10-0 bigha) and 1646 (area 5-3-0 bigha) of village Adampur Tindoli, pargana Akbarpur, district Faizabad. The land in dispute was recorded as banjar in basic consolidation year. There were several objections relating several plots including the land in dispute but now dispute is confined the aforementioned plots between Gaon Sabha and Tribhuwan Nath and others (respondents-2 to 4) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). The respondents filed an objection for recording their names as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. On the objection, Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report that land in dispute was in the shape of groves, over which trees of 70 years to 100 years age were standing, covering the entire land. The respondents examined Tribhuwan Nath as witnesses, who had stated that his ancestor Ganesh Chaubey had planted trees with the permission of the then Zamindar. After planting grove, he filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 1170) for recording his name as grove holder, which was decreed by Assistant Collector, First class, on 23.07.1913. Due to inadvertence, the order was not incorporated in khatauni. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 26.02.1971 held that although the respondents have filed certified copy of the judgment dated 23.07.1913 but they could not adduce any evidence to prove their possession. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the respondents. 4. The respondents filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 9951) from the aforesaid order. Three other appeals were also filed. All the appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 29.07.1971 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the respondents. 4. The respondents filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 9951) from the aforesaid order. Three other appeals were also filed. All the appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 29.07.1971 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1195/1220) from the aforesaid order, which was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, along with three other revisions, who by his order dated 21.09.1971 partly allowed the revision of the respondents and directed for recording their names as bhumidhar of plots 1154 and 1559 and dismissed the revision in respect of plots 1095 and 1646. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 69 of 1972 and the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 153 of 1972, against order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the writ petitions were consolidated and decided by order dated 27.11.1978. This Court held that Gaon Sabha had challenged genuineness of judgment of Assistant Collector dated 23.07.1913 but it was not dealt with by Deputy Director of Consolidation as such matter required fresh consideration. On this finding the writ petition of Gaon Sabha was allowed, order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision. 5. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation again heard revision, who by order dated 10.02.1981, held that the respondents had filed certified copy of plaint of Suit No. 142/1170 filed by Ganesh Chaubey (issued on 15.03.1917), certified copy of written statement of Hari Narain Singh filed in this suit (issued on 04.04.1925), certified copy of report of Naib Tahsildar dated 08.04.1913 (issued on 02.01.1914), certified copy of judgment of Assistant Collector dated 23.07.1913 (issued on 13.03.1917) passed in Suit No. 142/1170, certified copy of extracts of corresponding table of old and new plots of year 1946 (issued on 09.01.1975). Certificate relating to service record of Munshi Mahabir Prasad, Deputy Collector. Several persons/parties, in their oral statements, have admitted of filing of suit by Ganesh Chaubey against State of Diyara. Certificate relating to service record of Munshi Mahabir Prasad, Deputy Collector. Several persons/parties, in their oral statements, have admitted of filing of suit by Ganesh Chaubey against State of Diyara. From these papers, it has been proved that Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated 23.07.1913, had already held that grove has been planted by Ganesh Chaubey with permission of the then Zamindar and he was grove holder as such after date of vesting, the respondents, who were descendants of Ganesh Chaubey, had become bhumidhar. On these findings the revision of the respondents was allowed. Hence this writ petition have been filed. 6. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that this Court has remanded the matter to Deputy Director of Consolidation, directing him to decide genuineness of certified copies filed by the respondents relating to suit and judgment passed in Suit No. 142/1170 but Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally proceeded with assumption that High Court has found these papers as genuine thus he had not complied with the remand order. In the light of controversy, this Court directed Standing Counsel to produce original record of the case. However record could not be obtained as such by order dated 29.10.2015, the respondents were permitted to get back the papers/documentary evidence filed by them, from court below and file it, which has been filed along with Supplementary Affidavit on 22.11.2015. Thereafter, the arguments were heard. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The respondents, in their objection took plea that grove was planted by Ganesh Chaubey, their predecessor, over the land in dispute, with permission of the zamindar. However his name was not recorded in the revenue record. As such ganesh Chaubey filed Suit No. 142/1170 for declaring him grove holder of the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the then Zamindar. In the suit Naib Tahsildar made spot inspection and found grove panted over the land in dispute was existing accordingly he submitted his report dated 08.04.1913. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 23.07.1913. However, in spite of decree of Assistant Collector, name of Ganesh Chaubey could not be recorded in khatauni. They were continuously remained in possession of the land in dispute. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the suit was decreed by judgment dated 23.07.1913. However, in spite of decree of Assistant Collector, name of Ganesh Chaubey could not be recorded in khatauni. They were continuously remained in possession of the land in dispute. Assistant Consolidation Officer also in his report found that land in dispute was covered with trees of 70 years to 100 years age. Consolidation Officer in his judgment dated 26.02.1971 accepted the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1913. 8. Deputy Director of Consolidation, in this order dated 10.02.1981 held that the parties, in their oral statements had admitted filing of the suit by Ganesh Chaubey. However, under some confusion, he observed that genuineness of these documents had been accepted by High Court although he had decided its genuineness. Consolidation Officer also relied upon these documents. Although, these papers were filed before Consolidation Officer by the respondents to prove their case. Certified copies were obtained in between 1914 to 1925. The petitioner could not file any evidence to prove that these documents were forged papers. Now the arguments in this respect has been raised in the writ petition without any basis. 9. So far as possession of the respondents over the land dispute is concerned, from the report of Naib Tahsildar dated 08.04.1913 and report of Assistant Consolidation Officer, as noted in the judgment of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation it is proved that land in dispute is covered with trees of 70 years to 100 years old. In the judgment dated 23.07.1913, it has been held that groves were planted by Ganesh Chaubey with the permission of Zamindar and he was grove holder. Tribhuwan Nath in his statements has proved their possession over the grove land. On the date of vesting they become bhumidhar of the land in dispute under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Entry of banjar land was incorrect. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any illegality. 10. In the result, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.