S.S. Chauhan ORDER
S.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.5.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 20.8.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
2. The dispute relates to Plot No. 779, measuring 12 biswa recorded in the name of Ram Pher in the basic year in village Marai Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur.
3. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the opposite parties, claiming exclusive right in respect of Plot No. 779, alleging therein that a suit for preemption was filed by the objector and the said suit was later on, decreed and the decree of preemption was also executed prior to abolition of zamindari and they were put in possession. After execution of decree and being put in possession, the objectors were continuously in possession over the land in dispute and their title has not been disputed at any point of time and neither any suit was filed for their eviction nor their possession was challenged at any point of time by the petitioner. The petitioner knew that the possession of the objectors was continued and the right has accrued on the basis of decree of the court and as such, the entries existing in favour of the petitioner will not confer any right in his favour and if any right has accrued, then the same has no basis and neither the right can be ascertained without any basis in contradiction to the decree of preemption, decreed by the civil court. The Consolidation Officer after taking into consideration the evidence of the parties, allowed the objection. An appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed. Against the appellate order, a revision was preferred, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, indicating that the right of the petitioner was not substantiated under law and mere entry will not confer any right in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner and his ancestors were continuously existing from third settlement and upto basic year entry, their names were also existing in 1356-1359 fasli and, therefore, the decree of the civil court will stand nullified and no right can accrue on the basis of the aforesaid decree. Learned counsel submits that the said decree has never been challenged at any point of time by the petitioner and without there being any challenge to the decree, the petitioner has accepted the title of the opposite parties. It has also been submitted that long standing entries confer title in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, any claim raised by the opposite parties will not be tenable under law and the right of the petitioner stands substantiated from all corners. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the suit was decreed, but plot number has not been mentioned in the decree and, therefore, if any decree has been executed, that cannot be said to be in respect of Plot No. 779. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following cases:
(1) Vidhya Sagar v. Smt. Sudesh Kumari and others (Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 1974) decided on 08.10.1975;
(2) Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another, MANU/SC/0942/2008 : 2009 (27) LCD 698;
(3) Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others v. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others, MANU/SC/8191/2007 : 2008 (26) LCD 225;
(4) Karewwa and others v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri and others,