Surendra Narain Singh J. - (1.) These two writ petitions u/Art. 226 of the Constitution are directed against the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation with a prayer to quash his order. The dispute in these two writ petitions is in respect of three khatas, Khata No. 6 of village Usrauli, khata No. 14 and khata No. 78 of village Khalilpur. Khatas Nos. 6 and 14 mentioned above are bhumidhari khatas. Khata No. 78 of village Khalilpur is sirdari.
(2.) The facts giving rise to these cases are that one Padarath Rai along with others were co -proprietors and sir holders of the three khatas in dispute. Somewhere in the year 1887 Padarath Rai executed a sale dead in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner and respondents third set. It is said that after the sale the transferees entered into possession over the proprietary right as well as over the disputed plots. The transferee's name was recorded as sir -holder of these three khatas from the very inception. On the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act the name of the petitioner and opposite parties second and third sets were recorded as bhumidhars over khatas Nos. 6 of village Usrauli and 14 of village Khalilpur, but the names of these persons were recorded as sirdars over khata No. 78 of village Khalilpur. Neither party has been able to inform this Court as to how khata No. 78 was recorded sirdari khata in the name of the parties. However, on the findings recorded by the Dy. Director in respect of khata No. 78 this khata stands recorded in the name of both the parties and there is no dispute before me in respect of this khata. Therefore the decision of the Consolidation authorities in respect of khata No. 78 by which both the parties have been held to be co -sirdars has become final. The dispute between the parties now centers round khata No. 6 of village Usrauli and khata No. 14 of village Khalilpur. This decision, therefore, deals only with these two khatas, khata No. 6 of village Usrauli and khata No. 14 of village Khalilpur.
(3.) Over these two khatas the names of the petitioner and opposite parties second set and third set were recorded as bhumidhars. The respondent second set on the start of consolidation proceeding preferred objections in respect of these two khatas and claimed to be the sole bhumidhars of these two khatas and it was asserted that the entry of bhumidhari in the name of the petitioner & respondents third set was fictitiously made. The objection of respondent second set was accepted by the CO who directed the expunction of the names of the petitioner as well as of the respondents third set from these two khatas in dispute.;