JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case is called in revised, hence I have proceeded ex parte against respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Gulzari Lal (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) assailing the order dated 17.9.1971 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, Camp at Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as the “DDC”), whereby it has allowed Revisions No. 220, 221 and 222 declaring Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal as “Sirdars” of land in dispute. It has further held that under United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment Act, 1947”) persons recorded in basic year are entitled to retain possession upto three years from the date of reinstatement and such recorded persons shall retain possession of disputed land for a period of three years from the date of Revisional order and during such period they shall be recorded as “Asamis” over disputed land recorded in their names in the basic year. 3. The dispute initially raised related to Khatas No. 135, 261 and 273 but petitioner claim is in respect of Khata No. 135 of which he claims to be a Sirdar. The land is situated in Village Chilsari, Pargana Shamsabad West, District Farrukhabad. Patta of land was taken from erstwhile Zamindar in 1943 and he was cultivating same since then. Khata No. 135 comprised of Plots No. 221 (area 0.60 acres), 224 (area 0.72 acres) and 225 (area 0.63 acres). 4. Consolidation operations commenced in village under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1953”). 5. Respondents-1 to 3, i.e., Babu Ram, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal, all are brothers and sons of Mewa Ram, filed objections under Section 9(2) of Act, 1953 alleging that they were co-tenants of disputed plots in Khata No. 273 and other plots comprised in Khatas No. 261 and 135. They further alleged that they were co-tenure holders alongwith Sarnam Singh, Bramha Nand and petitioner, Gulzari Lal. A suit was filed by the then Zamindar against all co-tenure holders in respect of land comprised in Khatas No. 273, 261 and 135 under Section 171 of United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1939”), which was decreed in terms of compromise dated 25.8.1942. A suit was filed by the then Zamindar against all co-tenure holders in respect of land comprised in Khatas No. 273, 261 and 135 under Section 171 of United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1939”), which was decreed in terms of compromise dated 25.8.1942. Possession was obtained by Zamindar on 2.6.1943 under the decree. Respondents-1 to 3 claimed that they are entitled to get restoration of possession under Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947. They further said that an application for reinstatement under Section 10 of Amendment Act, 1947 was filed by them, which was decided against them upto Board of Revenue but a writ petition filed by them was pending when village came under consolidation operation. 6. The objections were rejected by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “CO”) vide order dated 28.6.1964. Matter went in appeal and Appellate Authority remanded matter directing CO to frame issues, record additional evidence and thereafter decide matter. Revision against remand order of Appellate Authority was rejected and writ petition thereagainst was also dismissed. 7. The matter again reached to CO. Objectors, Respondents-1 to 3, filed an amendment application before CO adding plea of fraud and undue influence in respect of compromise dated 25.8.1942. Amendment was allowed. Respondents-1 to 3 filed before CO, copy of decree of suit under Section 171 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1939”), copy of Dakhalnama dated 2.6.1943, Khasra of 1348 Fasli and some other documents. It was also brought before CO that after ejectment of Respondents-1 to 5, under decree dated 25.8.1942, opposite parties 4 and 5 got a subsequent lease and plots are still in their names which are being claimed by Respondents-1 to 3. Plots of Khata No. 135 were resettled with petitioner but same were also claimed by Respondents 1 to 3. 8. CO formulated following four issues: “1. Whether applicants Babu Ram, Munshi Lal alongwith Kanauli Lal are entitled to be declared as Sirdar of the land in suit. If so its effect. 2. Whether Vidhya Ram, Puttu Lal and Hirday Ram are Sirdars of the land in suit. If so its effect. 3. Whether Gulzari Lal is the Sirdar of the land in suit. If so, its effect. 4. Whether op. Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand are the Sirdars of the land in suit. If so its effect.” 9. If so its effect. 2. Whether Vidhya Ram, Puttu Lal and Hirday Ram are Sirdars of the land in suit. If so its effect. 3. Whether Gulzari Lal is the Sirdar of the land in suit. If so, its effect. 4. Whether op. Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand are the Sirdars of the land in suit. If so its effect.” 9. Objector-Munshi Lal-Respondent-2, had admitted that since 2.6.1943 he and his two brothers are out of possession. He however pleaded that said ejectment pursuant to compromise decree dated 25.8.1942 was result of fraud and undue influence was exercised by Mukhtar-e-am of Zamindar. 10. The documentary evidence included copy of decree dated 25.8.1942, Dakhalnama dated 2.6.1943, extract of Khasra 1348 Fasli, uncertified copy of order of Additional Distirct Magistrate (J) in Appeal No. 1/1960-61, copy of Board of Revenue’s order dated 2.11.1961, copy of order of J.O. Kaimganj dated 12.9.1960 and summons and copy of special writ petition filed before High Court. 11. CO found that neither solitary oral evidence of Respondent-2 was sufficient nor any documentary evidence has been brought on record to prove plea of fraud. He also found that under Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947, Zamindar was necessary party but he was not impleaded. Even State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha were not made parties. Petitioner-Gulzari Lal contesting matter deposed that there was no fraud played by Mukhtar-e-Am of Zamindar. It was also brought to notice of CO that Babu Ram, (Respondent 1), i.e., one of the objectiors, had taken some land from Mukhtar-e-Am after eviction. Nathu Lal, Ex-Mukhtar-e-Am of Zamindar also deposed and proved Dakhalnama in favour of Zamindar. He also proved Patta in favour of Vidhya Dhar; and Kabuliat in favour of petitioner-Gulzari Lal and respondent 5-Brahma Nand. He also deposed that no fraud was played. Land in suit was occupied by Asamis, so they were ejected. Respondent-8-Vidhya Dhar, also deposed that he took patta on 6.9.1943 from Zamindar which was executed by Mukhtar-e-Am in respect of twelve plots wherein he has planted guava grove. In view of evidence discussed above, CO held that recorded tenants were in possession over land in suit in 1356 and 1359 Fasli and became “Sirdar” automatically under Section 19 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1951”). In view of evidence discussed above, CO held that recorded tenants were in possession over land in suit in 1356 and 1359 Fasli and became “Sirdar” automatically under Section 19 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1951”). He concluded that objectors have failed to prove that they were ejected under Section 171 of Act, 1939 under fraud and influence. They have also failed to prove that they were in possession over disputed land at the time of ejectment. Compromise shows that they were not in possession, hence not entitled for benefit under Section 27(2) of Amendment Act, 1947. While rejecting objections, CO passed following order: “The existing entries of plot 251 (0.3), 251/2.02, 254/1/.37, 223/.22 of khata No. 261 in the names of Sarnam Singh and Brahma Nand son of Kamta and plot No. 80/.16, 81/.16, 217/.29, 218/.81 and 220/.92 of khata 273 in the name of Hirday Ram and others and plot 221/0.60, 224/.72, and 225.60 of khata 135 in the name of Gulzari Lal recorded tenants be continued in the same capacity. The claim of Baburam, Munshi Lal and Kanauji Lal objectors over the above plots is rejected.” 12. The objectors preferred three appeals being Appeals No. 43, 44 and 45 under Section 11(1) of Act, 1953. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as the “SOC”) observed that in basic year, Khata No. 135 is recorded in the name of Gulzari Lal. Khata No. 261 was recorded in the names of Sarnam Singh and Brahmanand and Khata No. 273 was recorded in the names of Hriday Ram, Putti Lal and Vidhya Dhar. Ejectment, however, pleaded on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation was not proved in absence of any evidence, hence findings recorded by CO were correct. He also found that all respondents before him were occupants of land in dispute in 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli and became “Sirdars”. All appeals accordingly were dismissed vide order dated 18.5.1971. 13. Three Revisions No. 220, 221 and 222 were taken by objectors before DDC under Section 48 of Act, 1953. DDC has held that under Section 171 of Act, 1939, tenants who have illegally sub-let land to others had to be ejected. All appeals accordingly were dismissed vide order dated 18.5.1971. 13. Three Revisions No. 220, 221 and 222 were taken by objectors before DDC under Section 48 of Act, 1953. DDC has held that under Section 171 of Act, 1939, tenants who have illegally sub-let land to others had to be ejected. Relying on Ram Surat Mishra v. Ram Lagan Tewari, 1958 RD 15, he has held that order of reinstatement could be made in favour of persons applying for reinstatement and not in favour of others. DDC has reversed orders of CO and SOC by relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gopal Narain and another v. Kanchanlal and others, AIR 1971 All 556 , observing that even if proceedings could not be finalized upto the enactment of Act, 1951, still protection of Section 27 of Amendment Act, 1947 could have been given. 14. Section 27 was inserted vide Amendment Act, 1947 in Act, 1939 with a view to give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of Zamindars. It reads as under: “27. 14. Section 27 was inserted vide Amendment Act, 1947 in Act, 1939 with a view to give relief to certain tenants who had suffered at the hands of Zamindars. It reads as under: “27. Reinstatement of certain ejected tenants.—(1) If, on or after the first day of January, 1940, any person was ejected from his holding or any part thereof- (a) under section 165 of the said Act for the non-payment of any amount not exceeding one fourth of his annual rent after taking into account the payment, if any, made by him outside the Court, provided that such payment is supported by a receipt, or (b) under section 171 of the Act, otherwise than on the ground of an illegal transfer by way of sale or gift, or (c) under section 180 of the said Act notwithstanding his having been recorded as an occupant after the first day of January, 1938 in a record revised under Chapter IV of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or corrected by an officer specially appointed by Government for the correction of annual registers in any tract, he may apply, within six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, to the Court, which passed the decree for his ejectment for reinstatement in such holding or part thereof, as the case may be: Provided that if such holding or part thereof was subject to a mortgage on the date of ejectment under section 171 of the said Act, the mortgagor and not the mortgagee shall be entitled to apply for re-instatement under this sub-section. (2) If, on or after the first day of January, 1940, any tenant of sir, who had become a hereditary tenant in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the said Act was ejected from his holding or any part thereof, or any tenant was dispossessed of his holding or any part thereof, through surrender or otherwise, in consequence of any fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or coercion practised upon or against him by the landholder or by any person acting on behalf of the landholder, he may apply, within six months from the date of the commencement of this Act, to the Court in which a suit would lie under section 183 of the said Act in respect of such holding for his reinstatement in such holding or part thereof, as the case may be. (3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Court shall give notice to the landholder and to the tenant, if any, in possession of the whole or part of such holding. After making such enquiry as may be necessary if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was so ejected or dispossessed, if shall order that the applicant be re-instated in such holding or part thereof, as the case may be, and that any other person in possession of it be ejected therefrom: Provided that if such holding or any part thereof is in possession of any person to whom the landholder had let it out before the first day of September, 1946, such person not being a relation, dependent or servant of the landholder, the Court, instead of ordering the ejectment of such person, shall notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, declare him to be the sub-tenant of the application in respect of such holding or such part. The person so declarated as a sub-tenant shall not be liable to ejectment until after the expiry of three years from the date of the declaration. The person so declarated as a sub-tenant shall not be liable to ejectment until after the expiry of three years from the date of the declaration. In such a case, the rent payable by the applicant to the landholder shall be the rent payable by him for such land before his ejectment or the amount calculated according to the circle rates; whichever is less, and the rent payable to the applicant by the person declared as sub-tenant shall be the amount payable by such person to the landholder immediately before the declaration of twelve and a half per cent, over and above the amount calculated according to the circle rates application to hereditary tenants, whichever is higher. (4) The applicant shall not be reinstated in such holding or in any part thereof, unless within such time as may be allowed by the Court, he pays to the landholder— (i) any amount that may have been paid to him by the landholder as compensation for improvements when he was so ejected; (ii) in a case in which the landholder has made any improvement on such land since such ejectment, compensation for such improvement calculated in accordance with the provisions of the said Act; and, (iii) in a case falling under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the amount that may be found to be due in accordance with that clause. (5) On reinstatement, the right and liabilities of the applicant existing on the date of his ejectment or dispossessed in respect of the holding or any part thereof from which he was ejected or dispossessed, shall revive subject to the proviso to sub-section (3). (6) An appeal against an order passed under this section shall lie to the Collector whose appellant order shall be final.” 15. Section 27(1) intends to give relief to the tenants who have been ejected under Sections 165, 171 or 180 of Act, 1939. Section 27(2) intends to give relief to such tenants who had surrendered their plots on account of fraud, undue influence or coercion on the part of Zamindars. Even DDC has found that objectors could not adduce any evidence to prove fraud, undue influence or coercion hence Section 27(2) was not at all attracted in the case in hand. 16. Section 27(2) intends to give relief to such tenants who had surrendered their plots on account of fraud, undue influence or coercion on the part of Zamindars. Even DDC has found that objectors could not adduce any evidence to prove fraud, undue influence or coercion hence Section 27(2) was not at all attracted in the case in hand. 16. So far as Section 27(1) is concerned, record shows that though suit was filed seeking ejectment under Section 171 of Act, 1939 but parties entered into compromise and suit was decreed in terms of compromise on 25.8.1942. 17. Section 171 of Act, 1939, reads as under: “171. Ejectment for illegal transfer, sub-letting.—(1) If a tenant transfers, or sub-lets, the whole or any portion of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the transferee or sub-lessee has entered into possession in pursuance of such transfer of sub-lease, both the tenant and any person who may have thus obtained possession of the whole or any part of the holding shall, on the suit of land-holder, be liable to ejectment from the area so transferred or sub-let at the date of the institution of the suit: Provided that, in the case of a voidable sub-lease, if the suit succeeds, the Court shall pass a decree permitting the tenant to apply in the same proceedings, within a time not exceeding one month from the date of the decree, for the ejectment of the person in whose favour the voidable sub-lease has been made, and directing that if the tenant so applies and if he ejects such person and resumes occupation of the land within such further time as the Court, either in the decree itself or by means of a subsequent order, may fix having regard to the provisions of Section 182, the decree shall not be executed against the tenant except in respect of costs. In such a case, the decree shall direct that, if the tenant either fails to apply for the ejectment of such person within the time fixed in this behalf or fails to resume occupation within the further time allowed by the Court for that purpose, the tenant as also the sub-lessee shall be ejected from the area sub-let at the date of the institution of the suit.” (2) To every suit under this section both the tenant and the sub-tenant or the person in whose favour the transfer purports to have been made shall be made parties.” 18. There is no finding recorded by Revenue Court regarding alleged illegal transfer, sub-letting etc. and on the contrary erstwhile tenants agreed to vacate land through a compromise pursuant whereto suit was decreed in terms of compromise. It thus cannot be said that ejectment of tenants was on account of the reasons justifying ejectment under Section 171 of Act, 1939 and that being so I am of the view that even Section 27(1) is not attracted in the case in hand and DDC in taking a view otherwise has erred in law. 19. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.9.1971 passed by DDC is hereby set aside and the orders passed by CO and SOC are here by restored. 20. No costs. —————