JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rajendra Kumar Ojha, Advocate for Respondent-2 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Advocate for Respondents-3 and 5. 2. In the present case, dispute is in respect of a land situated at Khata No.243 at Village:Bankat, District-Azamgarh. 3. In the basic year, undisputedly, name of one of the petitioners Imdad @ Khurtalli and Sajjad (father of original petitioner no.2) were recorded in revenue records. During consolidation proceedings, two objections were filed under Section 9-A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1953"). 4. First objection was filed by Yasin son of Khedan and second objection was filed by Mohd. Sami and others (original respondent nos.2 to 5) and they claimed rights on the land in dispute on the basis of sale deed dated 31.3.1973 executed by Yasin. 5. Before the Consolidation Officer, original petitioners claimed Sirdari rights on the basis of a Patta dated 27.7.1951 executed by Yasin in their favour which was made applicable since 1.7.1951 i.e. prior to date of execution of Patta. 6. Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of original contesting respondents and others vide order dated 17.1.1976 and accepted their claim on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 31.3.1973 and the claim of petitioners on the basis of Patta executed on 27.7.1951 was rejected. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: " The suit of cancellation of patta alleged to have been filed by Yasin in the year 1958 ended on 26.9.1960 against Yasin and in favour of Siddiq completed all two previous proceedings regular and correct in favour of Siddiq but as a matter of fact the jurisdiction of civil court was confined only to decide whether the alleged patta was liable to be cancelled or not in which there is a finding also that Siddiq is already sirdar and patta could not be cancelled on this score. The concealment of fact in the light of the said proceedings lastly influenced the judgment of the civil court also. The facts on which it is based no more exist now. Not only this, the fact that Siddiq was sirdar in the proceeding under section 229-B stands vitiated by fraud as held by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in the restoration application filed by Yasin in the year 1969 finally decided in 1974. The facts on which it is based no more exist now. Not only this, the fact that Siddiq was sirdar in the proceeding under section 229-B stands vitiated by fraud as held by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in the restoration application filed by Yasin in the year 1969 finally decided in 1974. Thus from all the surroundings circumstances, the demeanour of Siddiq undoubtedly was not above reproach and the law of equity provides that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The attitude of Siddiq as referred above was not based on honest dealing. The period spent during the existence of fradulent decree of 229-B cannot help objectors. Imdad and other son of Siddiq as laid on in 1969 RD Page 61 that fradulent decree does not exist in the eyes of law and consolidation courts can go behind. The decree where serious allegation of fraud is made. One fact is worth mentioning here that orders were noted down in the Khatauni in amaldaramad which was produced in the Munsif Court. Had Yasin been represented there his counsel must have detected the fact that order of sirdari right had already been pronounced in favour of Siddiq and Yasin might have filed restoration application then and there. His silence for a pretty long time shows that actually he had no knowledge of the proceedings and was in possession. On the point of possession Imdad and Sajjad led no evidence through independent witnesses who could state that they are in possession; contrary to this during consolation partal possession of Yasin was recorded and the entry of possession under section 8 CH Act has got evidentiary value as laid down in R.D.1969 page 34. However, the simple case before me is whether Imdad and others are sirdars on the basis of class IX entry. In my considered opinion in order to get rights under section 210 of Z.A. and L.R. Act the compliance of para A 80 Land Record Manual has not been made and all entries of possession are illegal and vague and thus Imdad and others are not sirdar under section 210 ZA and LR Act too. In my considered opinion in order to get rights under section 210 of Z.A. and L.R. Act the compliance of para A 80 Land Record Manual has not been made and all entries of possession are illegal and vague and thus Imdad and others are not sirdar under section 210 ZA and LR Act too. On the observation made above I am inclined to hold that Imdad and others have not proved their case while Yasin has established that Siddiq the father of objectors acted fraudulently in all proceedings as referred above and Yasin is sirdar of disputed land and thus issue no.1 is decided in negative and issue no.2 is decided in affirmative. Issue no.3 is decided accordingly. Issue no.4 and 5 are decided in affirmative. Issue no.7 is decided in negative. A copy of sale deed is on file which has been executed by Yasin in favour of Sami and others which has been duly proved by the marginal witness. The name of Yasin stands in the register malikan a copy of which is on record. According to my finding Yasin is bhumidhar and, as such, issue no.4 is decided accordingly." 7. Petitioners being aggrieved by the above referred order, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953, which was allowed vide order dated 4.8.1980. According to my finding Yasin is bhumidhar and, as such, issue no.4 is decided accordingly." 7. Petitioners being aggrieved by the above referred order, filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953, which was allowed vide order dated 4.8.1980. Relevant findings thereof are mentioned hereinafter: ^^iV~Vs dh ifjHkk"kk laifÙk gLrkarj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 105 esa ifjHkkf"kr gS ftldk laf{kIr lkjka'k bl izdkj gS fd fdlh vpy laifÙk ds Lokeh ij vpy laifÙk dks fdlh nwljs O;fDr dks fdlh ewY; dk ykHk pkgs og ml vpy laifÙk ls izkIr gks tkus okyh Qly dk va'k gks vFkok mlds cnys vU; dksbZ lsok gks] tks og fuf'pr le; rd vpy laifÙk ds Lokeh dks blds cnys vnk djrs jgsaxsA mijksä ifjHkk"kkvksa ds izdk'k esa eq0 ;klhu d ys[k fnukad 27 tqykbZ 1851 dks iV~Vs ds LFkku ij ykbZlsal dh laKk&nsus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; iw.kZ dkj.k ugha izrhr gksrk gSA Lor% bl ys[k dks ys[kd us gh iV~Vs dh laKk fn;k gS tks blds i<+us ls Li"V gSA mÙkj oknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk rdZ gS fd lk/kkj.kr;k iV~Vs ij yxku fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS fdarq izFke rgjhj esa equkQk 'kCn dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gS vkSj 177 :i;k lkykuk flíhd [kka dks crkSj equkQk ;klhu [kka dks vnk djus dh ckr blesa fy[kh gS esjs fopkj ls 'kCnksa ds gsj Qsj ls rgjhj ds mís'; dks ugha cnyk tk ldrk gSA vks0ih0&4 blds vfrfjä rglhynkj lxM+h }kjk okn la[;k 11 varxZr /kkjk 220 esa fn;s x;s fu.kZ; fnukad 14-06-57 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd Lor% ;klhu us flíhd ds f[kykQ fookfnr vkjkth ds cdk;k yxku dks Hkh nkf[ky fd;k Fkk ;fn dfFkr nkok equkQs ds cdk;k dk gksrk rks ;g rdZ fdlh gn rd ;qfä laxr ekuk tk ldrk FkkA mÙkjoknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh gS fd dfFkr rgjhj ;klhu fnukad 27-07-1951 dks ;fn fof'k"V vFkZ esa iV~Vk ekuk tkrk gS rks og oS/k ugha gSA D;ksafd ;w0ih- VsusUlh ,DV ds varxZr dk'rdkj dks 5 lky ls vf/kd le; rd ds fy;s iV~Vk nsus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA vkSj izfro"kZ ds varxZr /kkjk 23 bafM;u dkaLVsDV ,DV ds vuqlkj ml iV~Vs ds vk/kkj ij flíhd vFkok muds okfjl dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha izkIr gks ldrk gSA esjs fopkj ls mÙkjoknhx.k ds fo}ku vf/koäk dk ;g rdZ izFke fookn ds ifjisz{; esa cgqr cyoku ugha gS D;ksafd dfFkr iV~Vs ds vk/kkj ij ;klhu dks tehankjh fouk'k ds iwoZ dh Hkwfe ij flíhd [kka dks dCtk ns fn;k FkkA vkSj 1359 Q0 esa vkjkth futkbZ ij og Lora= :i ls dkfct Fks vr% ml dCts ds vk/kkj ij mls /kkjk 20 tehankjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vf/koklh ds vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;sA tks ckn esa lhjnkjh rFkk Hkwfe/kjh vf/kdkj esa ifjf.kr gks x;kA esjs fopkj ls fookfnr vkjkth ;klhu [kka dks fu;er% izR;kofrZr gksus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS vkSj muds }kjk cSukek ds vk/kkj ij eks0 leh vkfn dks fookfnr vkjkth ij dksbZ HkkSfed vf/kdkj ugha izkIr gks ldrk gS D;ksafd ;klhu [kka ds tks Hkh vf/kdkj Fks og tehankjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr lekIR gks x;sA vkSj mUgsa vkjkth futkbZ dks cSukek }kjk gLrkarfjr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA mijksä foospuk ds vk/kkj vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk vkns'k fo}ku pdcanh vf/kdkjh fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns'k fd;k tkrk gS fd [kkrk uacj 243 eqrkfcd vk/kkj o"kZ flíhd iq= lyker ds okfjlku benkj vkfn ds uke crkSj Hkwfe/kj vafdr fd;k tk;sA** 8. Original respondents herein filed a revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed and the order passed by Appellate Authority was set-aside and the order passed by Consolidation Officer was upheld. Relevant finding thereof is mentioned hereinafter: ^^bl eqdnes ds iwjs rF;ksa ij fopkj djus ds ckn eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk fd 1951 esa rgjhj fd;k x;k foys[k ;klhu }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe ds ckjs esa fd;k x;k ,d ,slk foys[k Fkk ftl ij os dqN ykHkkUl dh vk'kk djrs FksA mUgksaus dHkh Hkh viuk LoRo] vf/kdkj foi{khx.k ds firk dks ugha lkSaikA lkFk gh tehankjh mUewyu ds ckn bl iV~Vs ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k ds firk vf/koklh ugha gq, vkSj u rks vf/koklh ls lhjnkj gksus ds laca/k esa mUgksaus dksbZ dk;Zokgh dhA ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/koklh ls lhjnkj gksus dk nkok Hkh lekIr gks tkrk gSA tgka rd lh-vkj-ih-lh- dh /kkjk 145 dh dk;Zokgh] tehankjh mUewyu ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 220 ds varxZr rglhynkj ds U;k;ky; esa pyh dk;Zokgh dk iz'u gS] ;s nksuksa foi{khx.k ds firk dks lhjnkjh ds vf/kdkj izkIr ugha djrs gSaA] xkflokuk dCts ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k dh dHkh Hkh dksbZ IyhfMax ugha jgh gS vr,o blds vk/kkj ij mUgsa dksbZ Hkh ykHk ugha feysxkA rRdkyhu ts0vk0 ds U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 229 ch dk tks eqdnek pyk] mlesa fu.kZ; ,d i{kh; gqvk Fkk] mls [kkfjt djus ds fy, tks izkFkZuk i= rtohtlkuh nkf[ky gqbZ Fkh og Lor% [kkfjt gks x;h] og Hkh ,d QthZ dk;Zokgh dk gh va'k FkkA gkfde ijxuk us rtfotlkuh ds vks0ih0&5 izkFkZuk i= dks [kkfjt fd;k Fkk fdarq vihyh; U;k;ky; vkSj fuxjkuh U;k;ky; us mls Lohdkj fd;kA bldk vFkZ gqvk fd gkfde ijxuk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k lekIr gksdj fookfnr Hkfe ;klhu ds uke cnLrwr dk;e jgh vkSj mlus 20 xquk tek dj Hkwfe/kjh vf/kdkj izkIr fd;k vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe dks iathd`r c;ukek }kjk fuxjkuhdrkZx.k ds gd esa c; dj fn;kA lgk;d cankscLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh dk vkns'k fVdus ;ksX; ugha gSA eSa pdcanh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls lgefr O;ä djrk gwaA mijksä foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA lgk;d cankscLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh dk vkns'k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS rFkk pdcanh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k cgky fd;k tkrk gSA** 9. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Appellate Authority has rightly placed reliance on the findings arrived in the civil suit filed by Yasin for cancellation of Patta and petitioners have perfected their rights as 'Adivasi' with enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1950') and later on became Sirdar. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners has also referred the findings returned by Appellate Authority that in pursuance of Patta executed in favour of original petitioners, land was handed over to them and due to their possession after commencement of Act of 1950, they became 'Adivasi' and by virtue of other provisions, they became 'Sirdar' and later on became 'Bhumidhar'. Therefore, the alleged sale deed executed by Yasin on 31.3.1973 in favour of original contesting respondents was beyond his power, since the original petitioners have already perfected their rights on the basis of possession handed over to them in pursuance of the Patta. In the suit filed for cancellation of Patta, the Munsiff not only rejected the suit but returned a finding that original petitioners were 'Adivasi' and later on became Bhumidhar. 11. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the Consolidation Officer as well as Revisional Authority has observed that in the suit filed by petitioners under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, by the predecessors in interest of original petitioners, wherein they have based their claim on the basis of entries made in Class 9 was decided ex-parte, which was set-aside on an application filed for restoration on the ground of fraud and later on the proceedings were abated. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that findings returned by Consolidation Officer as well as by Revisional Authority are contrary to records since no such finding was returned in aforesaid suit. 13. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that Appellate Court has considered the case in its correct perspective and took note of the order passed in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. wherein also the possession of petitioners were accepted. He also pointed out that the decree dated 26.9.1960 was never challenged before any Court, therefore, findings returned therein became final. 14. He also pointed out that the decree dated 26.9.1960 was never challenged before any Court, therefore, findings returned therein became final. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that reliance placed on the order dated 26.9.1960 has no legal basis since civil court has no right to declare anyone as 'Adivasi' or 'Sirdar' and the order was beyond jurisdiction on the said issue. 15. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that from the contents of Patta, it is apparent that it was merely a license of land given on a fixed rent on per-annum, therefore, the documents relied on cannot be a basis to claim any right and since the name of ancestors of petitioners were recorded in revenue records only on the basis of said Patta would have no legal consequence. He further submitted that proceedings arising out of Suit under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, were abated, after an ex-parte order was set-aside and the matter was reopened. He also pointed out that under Section 40 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, no lease could be granted for a term exceeding 5 years, whereas in the present case, alleged lease was granted for a period of 10 years, therefore, it was void. 16. Learned counsel for respondents lastly submitted that claim, if any, on the basis of entries made in Class 9 of the petitioners would have also no basis since no specific pleadings were taken before the authorities below, as such entries in the revenue records were made after due process and he submitted that there was no illegality in the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 17. Heard learned counsel of parties and perused the records. 18. The crux of the rival arguments are that original petitioners are claiming their rights over the land in dispute on basis of two materials. 19. Original petitioners are claiming their rights on the basis of a Patta executed way back on 27.7.1951 and in pursuance of said Patta, possession was handed over to them when the 'Act of 1950' came into force and initially they became 'Adivasi' and later on became 'Sirdar.' 20. 19. Original petitioners are claiming their rights on the basis of a Patta executed way back on 27.7.1951 and in pursuance of said Patta, possession was handed over to them when the 'Act of 1950' came into force and initially they became 'Adivasi' and later on became 'Sirdar.' 20. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have submitted that they were claiming rights on basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favour by original tenure holders after getting Bhumidari Sanad. 21. A copy of Patta is not on record. However, contents thereof were considered and interpreted and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has returned a finding that it does not transfer any ownership rights to the original petitioners and it is also clear that a suit was filed for cancellation of Patta. 22. I am of the considered opinion that in a proceeding for cancellation of Patta, the finding returned that original petitioners became 'Adivasi' and later on 'Sirdar' were beyond pleadings as well as beyond jurisdiction also, therefore, original petitioners would not get any benefit on basis of aforesaid finding. 23. In order to prove their case, original petitioners have to stand up on their legs and have to effectively urge that on basis of documents and in pursuance of Patta, land in dispute was handed over not only for a limited purpose, but ownership thereof was also handed over to them. However, I find that there is no material on record, to support above case of the original petitioners. 24. I am also of the opinion that findings returned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that original petitioners neither on the basis of proceedings undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C. as well as nor any finding returned in the suits filed under Sections 220 or 229-B of the Act of 1950, would get support to their case. 25. Since the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not declare any title as well as in other suits, no final order was passed and order passed in proceedings in suit under Section 229-B of the 'Act of 1950' was set-aside on a restoration application. 26. 25. Since the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not declare any title as well as in other suits, no final order was passed and order passed in proceedings in suit under Section 229-B of the 'Act of 1950' was set-aside on a restoration application. 26. There is another factor which would be adverse to the case of original holders of the land in dispute that they have paid 20 times of rent and got Bhumidhari Sanad which has not been challenged by them and other persons and on the basis of such Bhumidhari Sanad, a sale deed was executed in favour of original petitioners, which was never set-aside. 27. In view of the above facts and circumstances when there was no material, evidence or document that land in dispute was handed over to the original petitioners in pursuance of a Patta and due to their alleged possession they became 'Adivasi' and later on became 'Sirdar' by virtue of provisions of Section 1950, therefore, claim of contesting respondents on the basis of a registered sale deed after the vendor got Bhumidari Sanad which has its legal consequence could not be rejected. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Deputy Director of Consolidation has within its jurisdiction has interfered with the order passed by Appellate Authority and on the basis of above referred material returned a finding which are based on evidence on record, thus no case is made out for any interference. 28. As discussed above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.