M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner had obtained a registered sale deed on 16 -5 -1947 of a one third share in two plots in village Sher in district Ballia. He thus became a co -tenure -holder of these plots with contesting opposite parties. His case was that a separate khata had been formed of this one third share which was thus partitioned and separated from the remaining area. But, this part of the Petitioner's case had neither been accepted by the Settlement Officer, in an appeal Under Section 11(1) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act decided on 16 -1 -1964, nor by the Dy. Director of Consolidation on the revision application of the contesting opposite parties which was allowed on 19 -3 -1964 by the Dy. Director Under Section 48 of the Act.
(2.) THE Petitioner was, however, found recorded as the sub tenant in both 1356 fasli and 1359 fasli over two thirds area of the plots in dispute. The Settlement Officer had observed that the Petitioner had got himself recorded as Shikmi over 2/3 area of the disputed plots with the help of the patwari which was against law. It is, however, possible to argue, from the manner in which this observation occurs in the midst of statements of cases of the two sides by the Settlement Officer, that this was not meant to be a finding but only a statement of the case against the Petitioner. But, there could be no doubt about the finding given by the Settlement Officer a little later in his judgment. He held that the Petitioner, who was the Respondent before the Settlement Officer, being a cotenure holder of the two thirds' area also, "the entry of adhivasi was incorrect after zamindari abolition". The Settlement Officer, agreeing with the Consolidation Officer, went on to hold that, the objection of the contesting opposite parties to the erroneous entry of the Petitioner's name as adhivasi of two thirds' area having been dismissed, without any reference to the application of opposite parties seeking permission to withdraw objections with liberty to object afresh, the question was concluded in favour of the Petitioner. He held that entries in the compensation roll had become final so that the contesting opposite parties could not deny the rights of the Petitioner as adhivasi and then sirdar. Thus, the Settlement Officer's view was that entries in the compensation roll were conclusive proof of adhivasi right.
(3.) THE contesting opposite parties had gone up in revision against the Settlement Officer's findings. The Dy. Director held, a little more clearly and definitely than the Settlement Officer: - -"The holding was joint. There has been no partition of the holding under the order of any court. The entry of sub -tenancy in favour of Ram Nandan Rai was obviously incorrect. The cotenure holder of joint khata cannot be recorded as sub -tenant. No adhivasi or sirdari rights in fact created in favour of Ram Nandan Rai on basis of fictitious and wrong entry of sub -tenancy".;