JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Litigation Before Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings It was not seriously disputed by rival parties that land in dispute is Plot No. 2157, area 3.74 acres, corresponding old No. 2023 and 728 in 1292 Fasli in Village Bari Gaon Tappa Bankat, Pargana Unwal, Tehsil Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur and predecessors in interest of petitioners have planted trees with permission of then Zamindar (predecessors-in-interest of contesting-respondents). 2. In the year 1887 a suit was filed by predecessors in interest of petitioners against then Zamindar which was decreed in terms of a compromise on 07.02.1887. It was accepted that 62 trees belongs to Nohar, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners. 3. In the year 1911, lots were prepared, wherein predecessors in interest of petitioners got 5/9 share, whereas predecessors-in-interest of respondents got 4/9 shares. Thereafter the village was brought under consolidation proceedings. A dispute still left, whether share was limited to number of trees or it has included the land also as well as its legal effect, if any. 4. A suit was filed which was dismissed. Appeal thereof was allowed and second appeal against appellate order was abeted on 28.09.1961. Litigation After Commencement of Consolidation Proceedings 5. On commencement of consolidation proceedings, petitioners were recorded as co-bhumidhars alongwith contesting-respondents. During consolidation proceedings Respondents-3 and 9 have filed objections under Section 9(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") claiming exclusive bhumidhari right. 6. The Consolidation Officer has rejected objections vide order dated 23.04.1973 and claim of petitioners being co-owner was accepted. The Consolidation Officer has framed issues and relevant findings thereon are reproduced as under: ^^mijksDr lcwr ls ;g Li"V gS fd QfjdSu ds iwoZtksa dk le>kSrk 1887 esa gks x;k rFkk ;g ckx FkhA ;|fi le>kSrs esa tehu ugha feyh FkhA ysfdu tks ckx Fkh vkSj mlesa fgLls caVs rc dksbZ otg esa ugha le>rk fd tehu esa fgLlk u feyk gksA rFkk mijksDr d vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu.kZ; ij igqaprk gwa fd jke iky flag vkfn dh ;g fgLlk rugk dh Hkwfe/kjh dh ckx ugha gSA njxkgh vkfn ds uke QthZ ntZ ugha gSA cfYd njxkgh vkfn lg [kkrsnkj gS] rFkk blh ds vuqlkj on fcanq 1 ls 3 rd dk fu.kZ; fd;k tkrk gSA** (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Contesting-Respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 29.01.1974 and relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter: ^^vr% njxkgh vkfn vius dh ckxnkj lkfcr djuk gSA mUgksaus 1867 Q0 dh udy dqjkZ nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlesa <+ks<+k dk uke 728 ij ntZ gSA fo}ku odhy us dgk fd ekStwnk ckx dh 728 dgh iqjkuh ckx gS] vkSj og <+ks<+k] njxkgh ckn ds ewfjl gS og ckxnkj] fdudy dqjkZ esa ckx <+ks<+k ntZ gSA <+ks<+k us bl uacj dk tqt jdok mfnr daoj dks dj fn;k Fkk vr% blds lk/kkj ij 1262 Q0 esa tfj, [kjhnxh mfnr dqaoj ds uke ntZ gq, ysfdu mfnr vkfn us eqlYye [ksoV vius uke ntZ djk fy;kA blds ckn eq0u0 8 lu~ 1887 nk;j fd;k x;k fd xyr [ksoV rS;kj djk fy;k x;k gS] vkSj pwafd mfnr dqaoj gh 07-02-1887 dks bldk iV~Vhnkj rFkk [ksoVnkj Fkk mlds rFkk ukSgj ds chp esa le>kSrk gks x;kA muds vuqlkj <+ks<+k ds oa'kt dks 62 isM+ feysA mUgksaus dgk fd 1911 dk dqdkZ nj[rku bl lqygukes ds vuqlkj gqok gS] vkSj gohc vkSj Qdhj vkfn ds uke Hkh ntZ gSA blds vuqlkj njxkgh vkfn blds ckxnkj gSA vkSj 1887 esa fd;k gqvk lqygukek i{kksa ds Åij ikcanh j[krk gSA fo}ku odhy us ;g rdZ j[kk fd jkeiky vkfn dk ;g dSl ugha gS fd ml oDr ds isM+ fxj pqds gSa] vkSj pwafd jkeiky us vius c;ku esa blds ckx ekuk gSA blfy, njxkgh dk gd lekIr ugha gqvkA mudk dguk gS fd jkeiky vkfn dh ;g iwjh ckx izdkj fey x;h dksbZ lcwr ugah gSA mfnr dqaoj ds 'kk[k ds j?kquanu gS] tks bl eqdnes dks ugha yM+ jgs gSa] blfy, njxkgh vkfn ckxnkj ekus tk;sxsA i=koyh ij dksbZ ,slh udy QnZ eqrkfcd ugha nkf[ky dh x;h gS ftlls ;g tkfgj gksrh gks fd <+ks<+k ds uke tks tehu Fkh og ekStwnk ckx gh FkhA vxj mldks ekStwnk ckx eku fy;k tk;s rks Hkh <+ks<+k pwafd ykoYn gh ej x, gS tks tqokuh lcwr ls tkfgj gS vkSj mfDr vkfn bl ckx ds tehankj FksA bl izdkj <+ks<+k dk gd bl Hkwfe ls lekIr gks x;k vkSj ;g Hkwfe tehankjku dks nh x;h gS ckn esa ukSgj us eqdnek bl laca/k esa nk;j fd;k vkSj vdsys mfnr dqaoj ls lqygukek dj fy;kA ;g lqygukek 62 isM+ksa ij ukSgj dk gd ekuk x;kA ;g lqygukek 1887 dk gS] tks 1294 Q0 gksrk gSA 1292 Q0 dh [ksoV ls Li"V gS fd mfnr dqaoj ds vfrfjDr Hkh blesa vkSj [ksoVokjku ds uke Fkk krks vdsys mfnr dqaoj ls lqygukek djus ij ukSgj dks isM+ksa ij gd ugha igqapk ldrk vkSj bl ckr ij eqdnek ua0 8 esa ikfjr fd;k x;k vkns'k ckxnkjh gd iznku ugha dj ldrkA flfoy tt dk vkns'k mlh lqygukes ds vk/kkj ekurs gq, ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] vkSj ;g vkns'k vafre ugha gqvk gS] D;ksafd gkbZ dksVZ ls eqdnek vcsV dj fn;k x;kA bl izdkj njxkgh vkfn ds ikl viuk gd nk;j djus ds fy, dksbZ lcwr ugha jg tkrk vkSj og bl ckx esa ckxnkj ughaA fo0p0v0 dk vkns'k fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr ds vk/kkj ij vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS] vkSj vkns'k gqvk fd ckx 2157@3&74 ls jktclUr] jktdju iq=x.k bUnziky rFkk njxkgh vkfn ds uke [kkfjt fd;s tk;sA 2157@1&57 jkeiky iq= fo"kiky] fotqyk iRuh jkt cgknqj] ';ke nqykjh] tax cgknqj ujsanz cgknqjds uke Hkwfe/kjh esantZ jgsxk vkSj 2157 fe0@2&17 jke laokjh iRuh fo'iky jkeiky iq= fo'iky ';ke nqykjh iRuh tax cgknqj fotqyk iRuh jkt cgknq] ujsanz cgknqkjds uke Hkwfe/kjh esa ntZ gksxkA vU; yksds ds uke [kkfjt gksaxsA fefly ckn vey njken nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA** (Emphasis supplied) 8. Petitioners thereafter preferred a revision, however, the same was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 08.09.1976 and relevant findings thereof are reproduced hereinafter: ^^dkxtkr ns[kus ls irk pyrk gS fd njxkkgh vkfn dk uke fo}ku flfoy tt ds vkns'k fnukad 28-09-61ds vk/kkj ij [krkSuh 1373&75 Q0 esa igyh ckj ntZ gqvkA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds fo}ku odhy dk rdZ gS fd tks eqdnes vcsV gks x, gSa mUgsa Hkh lcwr ds fy, iz;ksx fd;k tk ldrk gS] vkSj bl izdkj fuxjkuhdrkZ dk uke lgh ntZ gqvk gS] vkSj ekSds ij mudk dCtk Hkh gSA esjs lkeus ;g Hkh cgl dh x;h fd flracj 1926 d igys ckx ds ckjs esa djuwu cgqr lkQ ugha Fkk vkSj 1926 esa gh ckx tehankj vkSj ckx fj;k;k dk otwn dk;e gqvk vkSj dkuwu ds vuqlkj fj;k;k dks ckx yxkus ds fy, tehankj dh ljhgh ;k b'kkjru jtkeanh vko';d Fkh vkSj ckn fj;k;k }kjk ckx yxkus ds vk/kkj ij tehankj dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha djrk Fkk rks ;g le> tkrk Fkk fd blesa tehankj dh jtkeanh fufgr gSA fo}ku canksoLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh us vius vkns'k fnukad 29-01-84 esa i{kksa }kjk fn, x, lk{; dk iw.kZ fofospu fd;k gS vkSj lgh fu"d"kZ fudkyk gSA eSa muds dFku ls iw.kZr;% lger gwa fd dsoy mn; dqaoj }kjk fd;k x;k le>kSrk ekU; ugha gS] D;ksafd [ksoV 1292 Q0 esa vkSj Hkh [ksoVnkjku ds uke ntZ gSA bl izdkj ukSgj dks ;k muds oa'ktksa dks isM+ksa ij gd ugha igqap ldrk vkSj u rks ckxnkjh dk gd gh iznku dj ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr i=koyh ij xkVk la0 728 dk QnZ eqrkfcd ugha nkf[ky gS tks fl) djs fd ekStwnk uacj 728 ls gh cuk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh dk Qslyk fnukad 29-01-74 iw.kZr;% oS/kkfud gS] vkSj mlesa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% fuxjkuh [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA** (Emphasis supplied) 9. It is apparent from above referred details that reasons given by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority were that since in Khewat No. 1292 in addition to Udit Kunwar, who has entered into compromise with predecessors of petitioners, other Khewatdars were also recorded and since they were not part of the compromise, therefore, compromise would have not legal value. It is apparent from above referred details that reasons given by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority were that since in Khewat No. 1292 in addition to Udit Kunwar, who has entered into compromise with predecessors of petitioners, other Khewatdars were also recorded and since they were not part of the compromise, therefore, compromise would have not legal value. The entries of predecessors of petitioners were on basis of an order passed in an appeal on 28.09.1961 and since it was based on referred compromise and later second appeal was abeted, therefore, order would have no legal bearing. 10. An argument with regard to applicability of the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1926") was noted, but it appears that either it was not pressed or not considered. 11. Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation have rejected the effect of compromise decree on ground that compromise was not signed by all Khewatdars. However, since only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar was recorded in Khewat, therefore, he was competent to enter into compromise even on behalf of others. Alternatively it was submitted that atleast predecessors in interest of petitioners were entitled for share of Udit Kunwar. 12. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that predecessors in interest of petitioners as well as petitioners were in long possession atleast till commencement of consolidation proceedings, therefore, in the light of Section 196 of Act, 1926, which for the first time defines, "grove holders", predecessors in interest of petitioners were perfected their possession being "grove holders" and benefit thereof would fall at the time when U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950) came into force. As such entry of co-bhumidhar would be relevant. Learned counsel has stressed upon the proviso to Section 196 of Act, 1926. As such entry of co-bhumidhar would be relevant. Learned counsel has stressed upon the proviso to Section 196 of Act, 1926. For reference Section 196 of Act, 1926 is reproduced hereinafter: "196 - Definition: A grove-holder is a person to whom land has been let or granted by a landlord or permanent tenure-holder for the purpose of planting a grove, or who has in accordance with local custom entitling him to do so or with the written permission of the landlord or the permanent tenure-holder, planted a grove on land held by him as tenant (not being a permanent tenure-holder, a fixed-rate tenant or a sub-tenant) or as rent-free grantee, not being a grantee to whom the provisions of section 185 or section 186 apply, of such landlord or permanent tenure-holder, as the case may be: Provided that where the permission was granted prior to the commencement of this, the permission need not have been in writing and may have been either express or implied." (Emphasis supplied) 13. Learned counsel has further submitted that since petitioners were "grove holders" in terms of above referred provision, therefore, due to their long open possession they become Sirdar when Zamindari was abolished. He submitted that these legal aspects were not considered by Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation and being question of law the same could be considered by this Court. 14. Per contra, Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents, first of all referred the details of a civil suit bearing No. 116 of 1958 filed by original petitioner that Dargahi has sought relief of co-grove holder alongwith respondents, which was dismissed by Court of Munsif and first appeal thereof was allowed vide order dated 20.09.1961 and on basis of said order, original petitioners were recorded for the first time in revenue record of 1373 and 1375 Fasli, i.e., after Zamindari Abolition, therefore, no benefit could be granted to original petitioners of Act, 1926. 15. As second appeal was filed against the order dated 20.09.1961 the contesting-respondents, however, since consolidation proceedings commenced, second appeal was abated vide order dated 14.08.1970, therefore, effect of any decree passed earlier become inoperative. 15. As second appeal was filed against the order dated 20.09.1961 the contesting-respondents, however, since consolidation proceedings commenced, second appeal was abated vide order dated 14.08.1970, therefore, effect of any decree passed earlier become inoperative. Learned counsel referred the submission, consideration and findings referred by Settlement Officer of Consolidation in this regard, which are reproduced as under: ^^vr% vc u, fljs ls njxkgh dks viuk gd lkfcr djuk gSA [krkSuh 1292 Q0 dh udy nkf[ky dh ftlesa fookfnr xkVs dk iqjkuk ua0 2023 ckx ekfydku ;g mfnr dqaoj oxSjg ntZ gSA 1323 Q0 dh QnZ eqrkfcd nkf[ky gS] ftlesa vknkj o"kZ ds 2157 uacj iqjkuk ua0 2023 gSA mfnr dqaoj lqfpr dqaoj vkfn ds uke ntZ gSA muds uke ds lkFk vglkuqYYkkg dk uke Hkh ntZ gSA [ksoV 1323 Q0 dh udy nkf[ky gS blesa iV~Vh ua0 2 ij mfpr dqaoj vkfn ds uke ntS gS] vkSj [ksoV 1 ij vkSj yksxksa ds lkFk bdjkeqYyk dk uke ntZ gSA [ksoV iV~Vh ij bl ckx dk jdok 1&57 gS] vkSj [ksoV 2 ds bl ckx ij jdck 2&17 gSA [krkSuh 1334 Q0 [ksoV iV~Vh 3 mfnr dqaoj vkfn ntZ gSA bldk ckx 2157@2&17 ckx ekfydku iV~Vh mfnr daqoj ntZ gSA 1350 Q0 esa [ksoV iV~Vh 1 ls bdjkeqYykg dk uke lekIr gks x;k gSA vkSj ijelq[k vkfn dks NksM+dj 'ks"k uke ntZ gS ;kuh 4 vkfne;ksa ds uke dk bUnzkt gSA laroDl] j?kquanu] ;'kiky] fo"kiky] laroDl dh irksgw fotqyk gSA j?kquanu ds ujsanz cgknqj gSA ;'kiky ls lacaf/kr ';ke nqykjh gS] rFkk fo"kiky ds jkeiky gSA iV~Vh@[ksoVnkj ;'kiky] jke iky] j?kquanu o jkt cgknqj vkSj 3 ij ;'kiky] jkeiky] j?kquanu] jkt cgknqj] ijelq[k vkSj banziky ntZ gSA [krkSuh 1359 Q0 ls 2157@2&17 ckx ekfydk [ksoV iV~Vh 3 ds vuqlkj gS vkSj 2&57] 1&57 ckx ekfydku [ksoV iV~Vh 1 ds vuqlkj gSA 1372 Q0 dh [krkSuh esa 2157@2&17] 2&57] 1&57 ij muds okfjlku ds uke ntZ gq, gSa] rFkk njxkgh vkfn lg [kkrsnkj ntZ gq, gSaA 1373 ls 75 Q0 esa njxkgh vkfn ds uke dk fuQkt gqvk gS] vkSj nksuksa [kkrs VwV dj bl ckx dk bUnzkt bdëk gqvk gSA vihydrkZ ds fo}ku odhy dk dguk gS fd jglkuqYykg bdjkeqYykg njxkgh vkfn ds eqfjlku ugha gS] vkSj njxkgh vkfn ds ewfjlku dk uke bl ckx ls lacaf/kr [ksoV ij dHkh ntZ ugha jgk blfy, ;g ckxnkj ugha ekus tk ldrs gSaA fo}ku odhy us ;g Hkh rdZ j[kk fd udy nkok eqdnek nhokuh eq0 8 ukSgj iq= ujd tqykgk cuke mfnr dqaoj dh udy nkf[ky dh x;h gSA mlesa ;g fy[kk gS fd 728 ftldk eqdnek ua0 2023 gSA 1292 Q0 esa edcwtk o eulqok vkSnkuh dh Fkh&vkSnkuh ds yM+ds <+ks<+k vkSj ujdw jgrs Fks vkSj uds 'kk[k dk ;g ckx gSA ckx 2023 ls vEck vkSj egqvk ds isM gSaA 03-01-1886 ,DV ds vuqlkj n[ky cgd eqíbZ cuke eqnkyge lkfnj QjekbZ tkosA bl eqdnesa esa mfnr dqaoj ds lkFk lqygukek gks x;kA lqygukek ij mfnr dqaoj ds nLr[kr gS] tc fd 1292 Q0 esa vU; [ksoVnkj Hkh ntZ gS muds gLrk{kj ugha gSA bl lqygukek ds vuqlkj fMxzh gq;h vkSj ukSgj dk 62 isM+ dk ekfyd ekuk x;k vkSj 'ks"k isM+ksa ij ls mudh uke [kkfjt gks x;kA xkVk 2023 udy dqjkZ 1911 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa mfnr dqaoj] jkeyxu] lqesj] pkj fgLlk o fgLlk cjkcj tfj, [kjhnxh o vehj] Qdhj o nCc [kka o ,gumYykg eq0 vtekuh ikap fgLlk ntZ gSA vihydrkZ ds fo}ku odhy dk rdZ gS fd njxkgh vkfn dh fMxzh ls ;g lkfcr gSA fd bdjkeqYykg] ,glkuqYykg muds 'ktj ds ugha gS] vkSj 1911 dk dqjkZ esa Qdhj vkfn tks vk;s gSa] og Hkh muds 'kthj ds uke gSa 1887 ls vc rd muds uke dk bUnzkt dgha ugh gS] vkSj muds i{kksa esa dsoy eq0ua0 8@1887 dk lqygukek vkSj vkns'k gh gS ysfdu ml lqygukes esa dsoy mfnr dqaoj ds gLrk{kj gS] vkSJ eqdnesa esa ogh ,d Qjhd Fks vkSj lqygukek rFkk eqdnesa dk vkns'k isM+ksa ds laca/k esa gS] tks bl ckx esa njxkgh vkfn dk dksbZ ugha ns ldrk] D;ksa u rks mudk dksbZ gd gh ekuk x;k u dksbZ dCtk gh fnyk;k x;k vkSj laca/fkr Qfjdsu us dksbZ lqygukekgh nkf[ky fd;k gSA fo}ku odhy dk ;g dguk gS fd njxkgh vkfn u rks tehankj Fks vkSj u dk'rdkj FksA mUgksaus yxHkx 40 o"kZ ckn vkdj eqdnek yM+k gS] vkSj ujdw ftUnk jgs dksbZ ckx dk fgLlk ugha ekaxkA bl izdkj dksbZ gd njxkgh dk ugha gS njxkgh dh rjQ ls fo}ku odhy us rdZ j[kk fd jkeiky vkfn dh rjQ ls jkt clar vkfn dk uke [kkfjt djkus dh dksbZ vkifRr ugha FkhA mudk uke [kkfjt djkus ds fy, dsoy vihy esa gh dgk x;k gS blfy, 1292 Q0 ls 1359 Q0 rd i{kksa ds ewfjlku ds uke ntZ FksA jktclar vkfn us njxkgh vkfn ds uke [kkfjt djus dk dksbZ Dyse ugha fd;kA vr% ;g ekuk tk,xk fd og njxkgh dks ckxnkj ekurs gSa] vkSj pawfd dqN ckxnkj njxkgh dks ckxnkj ekurs gSa] blfy;s ;g ckxnkj gSA njxkgh vkfn ds fo}ku odhy bl rdZ ls eSa lger ugha gaw D;ksafd tSlk fd ?Åij dgk tk pqdk gSA jkt olar vkfn dk uke bl ckx ds 2&17 ij gh ntZ Fks tks mUgksaus jke&laokjh ds uke csp fn;k gS] vkSj mudk nkf[ky [kkfjt Hkh gks pqdk gSA bl izdkj jkt clar vkfn dks vo bl ckx dk ekfyd ugha ekuk tk ldrkA og njxkgh vkfn ds uke dks ntZ j[kus ds fy, euk djs ;k u djsa blls dksbZ QdZ ugha gksrkA** (Emphasis supplied) 16. Learned counsel for respondents has placed heavy reliance on above referred arguments and reiterated that petitioners were never recorded as tenure holders on the basis of their possession or being grove holders. The only basis of their right was the order passed by the Appellate Authority, however, since second appeal thereof was abated, therefore, no benefit could be accrued to them. He also submitted that petitioners and predecessors in interest of petitioners were never been recorded as tenure holders or grove holders and intention of contesting-respondents was always to consider the land only as a Bag and right whatsoever accrued to petitioners was limited to trees with exclusion of land. The agreement was signed by only one Khewatdar and other recorded Khewatdars were not party to it, therefore, apparently it would have no legal consequence. 17. Learned counsel for contesting-respondents further refers Sections 18, 19 and 20 of Act, 1950, which are reproduced hereinafter: "18. Settlement of certain lands with intermediaries or cultivators as Bhumidhar. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 10, 15, 16 and 17, all lands- (a) in possession of or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove; (b) held as a grove by or in the personal cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh; (c) held by a fixed-rate tenant or rent-free grantee as such; or (d) held as such by- (i) an occupancy tenant; (ii) a hereditary tenant; (iii) a tenant on Patta Dawami or Istamrari referred to in Section 17; possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale, (e) held a grove holder, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder, as the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as bhumidhar thereof. (2) Every person belonging the class mentioned in Section 3 or sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act. (2) Every person belonging the class mentioned in Section 3 or sub-section (2) of Section 3-A of the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act. 1949 (U.P. Act X of 1949), who has been granted the declaration referred to in Section 6 of the said Act, in respect of any holding or share thereof shall, unless the declaration is subsequently set aside, be deemed to be the bhumidhar of the holding or the share in respect of which the declaration has been made and continues in force. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 (U.P. Act X of 1949), any declaration granted under Section 6 of the said Act, in favour of a tenant whom subsection (2) of Section 10 applies, shall be and is hereby cancelled and the amount deposited by him under Section 3 or 6 of the said Act, shall, after deducting the amount which might have been paid or be payable by the State Government to his land-holder under Section 7 and 8 of the said Act, be refunded to the person entitled in such manner as may be prescribed. 19. Land in the holdings to be settled with the tenants thereof as sirdar. - All land held or deemed to have been held on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting by any person as- (i) a tenant holding on special terms in Avadh; (ii) an ex-proprietary tenant; (iii) an occupancy tenant; (iv) a hereditary tenant; (v) a grantee at favourable rate of rent; (vi) a non-occupancy tenant of tea estates notified as such in a notification issued under sub-section (5) of Section 30 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939); (vii) a sub-tenant referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, and; (viii) [Deleted by U.P. Act No. 16 of 1953 (w.e.f. 01.07.1952)] (ix) all land referred to in Section 17 held on the said date by any person on Patta Dawami or Istamrari, shall save in cases provided for in Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18, be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such person, who shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled, except as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 18, to take or retain possession as a sirdar thereof. 20. 20. A tenant of Sir, sub-tenant or an occupant to be an adhivasi. - Every person who- (a) on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting was or has been deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of this Act- (i) except as provided in sub-clause (i) of Clause (b), a tenant of sir other than a tenant referred to in Clause (ix) of Section 19 or in whose favour hereditary rights accrue in accordance with the provisions of Section 10; or (ii) except as provided in [sub-clause (i) of Clause (b)], a sub-tenant other than a sub-tenant referred to in proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947), or in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939) of any land other than grove land, (b) was recorded as occupant,- (i) of any land other than grove land or land to which Section 16 applies or land referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 in the khasra or khatauni of 1356-F prepared under Section 28, 33 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), or who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947); or (ii) of any land to which Section 16 applies, in the [khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of] the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), but who was not in possession in the year 1356-F; shall, unless he has become a bhumidhar of the land under sub-section (2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause (h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof." 18. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that since none of the conditions provided in above referred provision were fulfilled, therefore, petitioners cannot claim any right. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that since none of the conditions provided in above referred provision were fulfilled, therefore, petitioners cannot claim any right. Lastly, learned counsel has reiterated the considerations and findings returned by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that predecessors in interest of petitioners were recorded in revenue record for the first time in the year 1973, i.e., much after the commencement of Act, 1950, therefore, they have no right over the land of Baag. 19. Counsel further submitted that so far as argument with regard to co-tenancy is concerned, burden lies upon petitioners and they have failed to discharge the same. Learned counsel further submitted that since land was admittedly was not ancestral, no right could be accrued under the provisions of United Provinces of Tenancy Act, 1939. He further submitted that in writ jurisdiction concurrent findings could be interfered only when there are perversity or error apparent on the face of record or beyond jurisdiction, which is not the case in hand. 20. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that since revenue entry entered in favour of predecessors in interest of petitioners in the year 1973 was based on long possession, therefore, according to Section 18(a) and (c) of Act, 1950 petitioners would be considered intermediaries or cultivators of land in dispute or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove. Long possession of predecessors in interest of petitioners was not much disputed, therefore, effect of entry at belated stage would not forego legal effect of their long possession. 21. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 22. As referred above, claim of petitioners and their predecessors was accepted on the ground that there was an agreement between predecessors of both parties way back in the year 1887 and Baag was handed over to predecessors of petitioners. Consolidation Officer has accepted that in the compromise rights on land were not handed over to petitioners or their predecessors. However, there is a presumption that since Baag was handed over, therefore, it implies that land was also handed over. This assumption was not accepted by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities. 23. Consolidation Officer has accepted that in the compromise rights on land were not handed over to petitioners or their predecessors. However, there is a presumption that since Baag was handed over, therefore, it implies that land was also handed over. This assumption was not accepted by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities. 23. The above referred both authorities have considered the other aspects of case also, i.e., claim of predecessors of petitioners was for the first time recorded in revenue record on the basis of a decree passed by Appellate Civil Court, which was based on a compromise/ agreement entered between parties in the year 1887. However, second appeal thereof was abeted since consolidation proceedings commenced and both authorities held that there would be no legal consequence of the order passed by Appellate Civil Court and, therefore, no legal consequence would follow from any order passed thereon. Above referred both authorities have further considered that agreement itself was not legally enforceable since it was executed by only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar without consent of other Khewatdars. Both authorities have also considered that due to death of Doda, being issueless, possession of Baag was returned to the then Zamindar and thereafter possession was handed over on basis of an agreement executed between parties at the instance of Udit Kunwar being only one Khewatdar and other Khewatdars were not party to it. 24. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued about the legal effect of provisions of Act, 1939 that by virtue of said Act they have already become grove holders and rights thereof would fall. This argument appears to be urged before Revisional Authority as it was noted but it further appears that it was not argued or pressed effectively. 25. I have carefully perused the provisions of Section 196 of Act, 1939 and specifically its proviso. For any legal consequence of Section 196, i.e., for the purpose of declaration of being a "grove holder", there are certain requirements such as land was granted for the purpose of raising a grove, either in accordance with law, custom or with written permission. However, proviso provides that if the permission was prior to commencement of Act, it need not to be in writing and may have been either express or implied. However, proviso provides that if the permission was prior to commencement of Act, it need not to be in writing and may have been either express or implied. It has been observed and discussed above that predecessors of petitioners were granted Baag by way of an agreement executed in the year 1887 which was signed by only one Khewatdar, namely, Udit Kunwar. Now the question arose, whether said agreement would fall within the provisions as referred above, i.e., it would be considered to be a legally permissible or not. 26. Both authorities, i.e, Appellate and Revisional, have returned a finding that agreement could not be legally enforceable since it was not signed by other Khewatdars. Aforesaid finding of fact could not be disputed effectively by learned counsel for petitioners and he has argued that alternatively petitioners and their predecessors be declared to be beneficiaries of grove holders atleast to extent of area of the share of Udit Kunwar. However, I do not find any merit in the argument. The agreement, as referred above, is of the entire land and not limited to share of Udit Kunwar. Agreement has to be considered on the basis of contents thereof and intention behind it. Udit Kunwar has executed agreement treating himself as Zamindar of entire Baag and not only to the extent of his share. This Court cannot facture the agreement in contradiction of its condition and intention and Court is of the view that petitioners and their predecessors could not get benefit of agreement and they cannot be deemed to be grove holders in terms of proviso to Section 196 of Act, 1939. The concurrent findings of fact are not perverse, therefore, it cannot be interfered by this Court by issuing a writ of certiorari and for this purpose it would be appropriate to quote few paragraphs of the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Central Council for Research In Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 996 as under: 65. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory. 66. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (See: King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1992) 2 AC 128 (PC)." 27. In view of above, the writ petition being sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.