AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioners claim co-tenancy rights and they filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act contending that their names deserve to be recorded and the names of the contesting respondents deserve to be expunged to the extent of exclusion of the petitioners. The main contest that was put forth by the petitioners was on the strength of an alleged compromise followed by a decree in proceedings under Section 59/61 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that the said compromise and the decree clearly indicate that the petitioners were accepted as co-tenants and, therefore, the said compromise ought to have been given effect to. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioners but the same has been reversed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the reversal has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;