Hon'ble A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) THE petitioners and the contesting respondents are related to each other according to the pedigree given herein under : JUDGEMENT_215_ADJ6_2011Image1.jpg
(2.) THIS pedigree was however disputed at the stage of the consolidation officer but the aforesaid issue appears to have been reconciled and the pedigree is almost admitted to the parties. According to the aforesaid pedigree Ahmad Beg had nine sons. His two sons namely Bashir Beg and Nazir Beg are represented by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being the grandsons of Ahmad Beg. They are the sons of Bashir Beg and Nazir Beg, who died issueless. Bashir Beg and Nazir Beg were two sons from the first wife of Ahmad Beg. It has also come on record that the aforesaid two sons had predeceased their father and Ahmad Beg at the time when he died was living with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Ahmad Beg married a second time and a third son was born to him, namely, Latif Beg whose four sons are petitioner Nos. 7 to 10 herein. They are also his grand sons. From his third wife he had six sons, who are the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 before this Court.
(3.) AHMAD Beg had approximately 80 bighas of land and it has been contended by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the grand sons of AHMAD Beg from the first wife, that they had been given 40 bighas of land half share of the holding during his life time by AHMAD Beg and the balance of 40 bighas was being cultivated as per the wish of AHMAD Beg by the other seven sons bom out of the second and third wedlock. When the consolidation operations commenced claims were filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by petitioner No. 4, Salim Beg, one of the sons from the third wife, contending that his name has been omitted in the Basic Year records and, therefore, the same should be recorded as a co-tenure holder and he be also declared to be the owner of his respective share. He also set up a claim that he had 1/8th share, as out of nine sons of Ahmad Beg, Nazir Beg had died issueless and, therefore all the eight sons had equal share and the respondent Shabbir Beg and Siddique Beg grandsons had 1/16 share each. It is to be noted that the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Shabbir Beg and Siddique Beg were already recorded in the basic year. Finding the matter to be a dispute of succession, the Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer, who registered it as an objection and passed an order on 12th May, 1998. This order appears to have been passed ex-parte and the petitioner No. 1 Khalil Beg and his other brothers appear to have moved a restoration application which was allowed on 10.11.2000 and the order dated 12.5.1998 was set aside. Khalil and others also filed an objection contending that the name of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been wrongly recorded and deserves to be expunged as the entries are forged. The petitioner Nos.1 to 6 however, admitted the claim of petitioner Nos. 7 to 10.;