suresh 5-PILG-86.2008.doc the Revenue Code of 1966 r/w Section 4 of the Act of 1951. The orders in relation to the lands prior to the Consent Decree were set aside, by consent. Now, what Mr. Deshmukh urged before us is that the lands belonging to the Government and vesting are shown at Exhibit-A to the Consent Decree, page 60 of the paper-book. One of the villages is Village “Tirandaj”. Then Exhibit-B is a list of the appropriated lands. The Exhibit-C to the Consent Decree is a list of disputed lands and the area located in Village Tirandaz, stated to be Gaothan, was shown as 2 acres and 15 gunthas. It is evident from the Consent Decree, therefore, that the inquiry was directed in relation to the disputed land. In relation to the disputed land the issue was, whether the Gaothan land claimed by the Circle Inspector on behalf of the Government as located in two parts, namely, one between Survey Nos.1 and 2 and the other between Survey Nos.4 and 7 vests in the Government and whether the land, as stated by opponent No.1 and the other two villagers, falls in Survey Nos.40 and 41 in one block (shown in green colour by the Circle Inspector in the plan) is Gaothan? The opponent No.2 to this inquiry before the Sub-Divisional Officer was Chittaranjan Sharma, the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.12. He said that this land belongs to him and it is taken on 99 years’ lease and he is collecting rents from the persons who have constructed huts on the land admeasuring 1 acre and 7 gunthas. He could not produce any documentary evidence in
