ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.)THESE four writ petitions arise out of same order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh hence are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.)HEARD Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate appearing as Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6367 of 1975; Sri Sankatha Rai appearing as counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2752 of 1975; Sri R.N. Singh Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.N. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 6217 of 1975 and Sri R.S. Misra learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing in Writ Petition No. 2847 of 1975. Above Counsels representing the above noted petitioners have also addressed their submissions as respondents in writ petitions in which they are arrayed as respondents.
Facts giving rise to above writ petitions briefly noted are :

Consolidation proceedings started in village Katkamanpur, Tahsil Sadar District Pratapgarh under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation to Holdings Act, 1953. Dispute relates to basic year Khata No. 8, Khata No. 121 and Khata No. 318. In basic year above Khatas were recorded in the names of following persons : Khata Name of persons recorded 8 Paras Nath and Shitla Prasad sons of Amar Nath, Kade Deen son of Amar Nath (Kade Deen reported to be dead leaving behind Kamla Kant his son) 121 Kade Deen, Paras Nath, Shitla Prasad sons of Amar Nath 318 Shri Pal son of Mahadeo, thereafter, Ram Pratap and Bhagwan Din sons of Shripal.

(3.)VARIOUS objections were filed under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding three Khatas. With regard to Khata No. 8 objection was filed by Ram Bodh and Basudeo claiming half share in the Khata. Objections were also filed regarding Khata No. 8 by Bhagwan Din, Ram Pratap sons of Shripal, Shanker, Ram Sundar, Vijay Nath, Ram Baran, Bhawani Pher, Beni Madhav, Sukh Narain, Sukh Nandan and Sankata Prasad claiming co - tenancy right with the allegations that the Khata is ancestral. With regard to Khata No. 121 objections were also filed by Ram Bodh and Basudeo claiming half share. Other objections were filed by Bhagwan Din, Ram Pratap son of Shripal, Shanker, Vijay Nath, Ram Awadh, Ram Baran, Bhawani Pher, Beni Madhav, Ram Lagan, Sukh Narain, Sukh Nandan and Sankatha Prasad claiming co -tenancy right in the Khata on the ground that it is ancestral property. With regard to Khata No. 318 which was recorded in the name of Shri Pal son of Mahadeo and, thereafter in the name of his sons Bhagwan Din and Ram Pratap. Objections were filed by Shitala Prasad and Paras Nath sons of Amar Nath, Kamla Kant sons of Kade Deen praying that the name of Shripal be expunged and their names be recorded as sole Bhumidhars. Consolidation Officer after remand from the appellate Court vide its order dated 18 -8 - 1971 rejected all the objections and directed maintaining of basic year entry. Seven appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The appeal of Sukh Nandan, Ram Narain, Udit Narain and Bhagwan Deen regarding Khata No. 8 was partly allowed. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation directed recording of the names of Sukh Nandan, Sankatha Prasad, Bhagwan Deen and Ram Pratap son of Shripal, Roop Narain, Chandra Narain and Raj Narain sons of Sukh Narain and Udin Narain son of Ram Achraj as co -tenure tenant holders alongwith the recorded tenants. Rest of the claim of the appellants were rejected. Against the appellate order dated 9 -1 -1972 six revisions were filed being Revision No. 6965/507, Shitala Prasad v. Ram Pratap and others, Revision No. 6988/509/377, Udit Narain and others v. Shitala Deen and others, Revision No. 6960/506/378, Sankatha Prasad and others v. Shitla Deen and others, Revision No. 6952/510/379, Bhagwan Deen and others v. Shitala Prasad and others, Revision No. 6987/535/380, Udit Narain v. Shitla Prasad and others, and the Revision No. 6979/524/381, Basudeo and others v. Shitala Prasad and others. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed all the revisions by maintaining the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the consolidation authorities these four writ petitions have been filed.