ORDER : Salil Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 679 (area 12 biswa and 13 dhur) included in Khata No. 45 (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed khata'). 3. It is an admitted case of the parties that in the previous consolidation proceedings an order dated 15.6.1958 was passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 8(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), as it then stood, holding the petitioners to be the Bhumidhars of the disputed plot and the predecessor of respondent No. 3 was recorded in Class 9. It is also apparent from the records that respondent No. 3 or his predecessor were not recorded in possession of the disputed plot in the revenue records relating to 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli. During the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises, the respondent No. 3 filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 registering Case No. 1183 before the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') claiming to have acquired his Bhumidhari rights over the disputed plot by adverse possession. The C.O. vide his order dated 19.9.1979 rejected the objections filed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the order dated 15.6.1958 was not binding in title proceedings as the same was passed under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1953, as it previously stood. In his aforesaid order, the C.O. also held that the possession of respondent No. 3 over the disputed plot before 1361 Fasli was not proved and respondent No. 3 was not recorded in possession in the Khasra of 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli. Consequently the C.O. held that respondent No. 3 had not proved continuous and uninterrupted possession over the disputed plots so as to acquire Bhumdhari rights by adverse possession. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.1979 passed by the C.O., the respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 332 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C'), which was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 23.1.1980. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.1979 passed by the C.O., the respondent No. 3 filed Appeal No. 332 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C'), which was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 23.1.1980. The order dated 23.1.1980 passed by the S.O.C. in Appeal No. 332 was challenged by the petitioners under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C') in Revision No. 5986. The D.D.C vide his order dated 6.4.1981 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. The orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981 passed by the S.O.C. and D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. A perusal of the impugned orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981 passed by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. shows that the said orders have been passed relying on the order dated 15.6.1958 passed by the Consolidation Officer in the previous consolidation proceedings and after holding that the said order had attained finality inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 15.6.1958 was also dismissed by the concerned appellate authority. In their impugned orders, the S.O.C. as well as the D.D.C. have also relied on the entries in the Khatauni relating to 1374 Fasli to 1376 Fasli and 1380 to 1385 Fasli as well as entries in Khasra relating to 1372 Fasli to 1384 Fasli in which respondent No. 3 was recorded in Class 9. Consequently, the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. held that respondent No. 3 had acquired Bhumidhari rights over the disputed plot by adverse possession even though he was not recorded in possession in Khasras relating to certain years. 5. The order dated 15.6.1958 was passed in proceedings under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1953 as it then stood. Section 8(3) of the unamended Act, 1953 is reproduced below:- "...8(3) Upon receipt of the directions under clause (a) of subsection (2), the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after such further parlal as he may consider necessary, correct the entries in the Annual Registrar in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter III of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901." 6. Section 8(3) of the unamended Act, 1953 is reproduced below:- "...8(3) Upon receipt of the directions under clause (a) of subsection (2), the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall, after such further parlal as he may consider necessary, correct the entries in the Annual Registrar in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter III of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901." 6. The proceedings under Section 8(3) of the Act, 1953 were summary in nature, and the enquiry under Section 8 related only to possession and not to title or interest of the parties and the finality of the said order relates only to question of possession and not to disputes relating to title. 7. A reading of the order dated 19.9.1979 passed by the C.O. shows that in his order dated 15.6.1958 passed under Section 8 of the Act, 1953 the then C.O. had also recorded that there were fights between the parties regarding cultivation of the disputed plots. Apparently, the alleged possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 was not peaceful. In his order dated 19.9.1979 the C.O. held that the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 over the disputed plot before 1361 Fasli was not proved. The said findings of the C.O. have not been set aside by the S.O.C and the D.D.C in their impugned orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981. The predecessor of respondent No. 3 was recorded in Class 9 by order dated 15.6.1958 and was for the first time recorded as such in the revenue records of 1363-1365 Fasli. In their impugned orders the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have not referred to any evidence showing the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 from 1364 Fasli to 1372 Fasli. The predecessor of respondent No. 3 was not recorded in possession in the Khasra of 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli. Apparently, the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 was not continuous and uninterrupted for the prescribed period. In his impugned order dated 6.4.1981, the D.D.C. has held that absence of entries in favour of respondent No. 3 in some Khasras were mere mistakes of the Lekhpal. In absence of any other evidence to prove the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 in 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli, the said opinion of the D.D.C. is based on mere presumptions. In absence of any other evidence to prove the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 in 1373 Fasli, 1375 Fasli, 1380 Fasli and 1383 Fasli, the said opinion of the D.D.C. is based on mere presumptions. Further, it is on record that the predecessor of respondent No. 3 had died before 1381 Fasli and therefore was wrongly recorded in possession in the revenue records subsequent to 1381 Fasli. It is evident from the evidence referred by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. in their impugned orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981 that the possession of respondent No. 3 or his predecessor over the disputed plot was not continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and undisturbed. Consequently, the adverse possession of respondent No. 3 and that he had acquired Bhumidhari rights over the disputed plot is not proved by the evidence referred by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. in their orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981. 8. Learned counsel for respondents has argued that after the order dated 15.6.1958 passed by the Consolidation Officer in previous consolidation proceedings, the petitioners did not file any objections under Section 12 of the unamended Act, 1953, and therefore, the order dated 15.6.1958 had attained finality and the petitioners can not now avoid the consequences of the said order. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. The order dated 15.6.1958 merely acknowledged the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 in 1364 Fasli as it was passed under Section 8(3) of the unamended Act, 1953 and did not relate to the title of the parties. The findings of the C.O. in his order dated 19.9.1979 that the possession of the predecessor of respondent No. 3 before 1361 Fasli was not proved has not been set aside by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. in their impugned orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981. The title of the petitioners was accepted by the C.O. in his order dated 15.6.1958 and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioners to file objections under Section 12 of the Act, 1953. In fact, it was for the predecessor of respondent No. 3 to file objections under Section 12 claiming to have acquired Bhumidhari rights by adverse possession. Apparently, the predecessor of respondent No. 3 did not file any objections under Section 12 as he had not acquired Bhumidhari rights by 15.6.1958. In fact, it was for the predecessor of respondent No. 3 to file objections under Section 12 claiming to have acquired Bhumidhari rights by adverse possession. Apparently, the predecessor of respondent No. 3 did not file any objections under Section 12 as he had not acquired Bhumidhari rights by 15.6.1958. The respondent No. 3 could have acquired Bhumidhari rights over the disputed plots only if he could prove adverse possession of his predecessor over the plots after 1363 Fasli. As recorded earlier, the evidence referred by the S.O.C. and the D.D.C. do not prove that the predecessor of respondent No. 3 remained in continuous and uninterrupted possession after 1364 Fasli so as to acquire Bhumidhari rights over the plots by adverse possession. 9. For the aforesaid reason, the orders dated 23.1.1980 and 6.4.1981 passed by the S.O.C. and D.D.C. are illegal and contrary to law and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the orders dated 23.1.1980 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 2 and 6.4.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, i.e., respondent No. 1 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur to pass fresh orders in Appeal No. 332 in light of the observations made by this Court within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Parties shall maintain status quo regarding the disputed plot till fresh orders are passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed.