A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities in relation to the title over the land in dispute between the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 late Vashishth Narain and the objectors namely Narvada Prasad the father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and one Tribhuwan Nath his brother.
(2.) THE objections were preferred in the year 1984 on a clear allegation that Vashishth Narain belongs to a separate pedigree altogether and not to the pedigree of the objectors now represented through the contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 6. THE pedigree which was relied upon by the respondents in their objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is contained therein and has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. THE case set-up by them was that land of Khata No. 367 was the exclusive tenancy of the objectors and the details of the plots were mentioned in paragraph 1 of the objection. In Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the objection it has been asserted that plot No. 742 jointly stood in the name of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and the predecessors in interest of the respondents, and they were equal shareholders therein. THE objection further narrates that since the objectors Tribhuwan Nath and Narvada Prasad were minors, therefore, they were represented through their guardian Lallan who manipulated the entries in his favour. It was further contended that the name of Vashishth Narain against the said disputed Khata which has been entered is "farji'. Certain other objections relating to shortage of area in other plots were also mentioned. This objections were allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 27.7.2009 recording a finding to the effect that the name of the petitioner-opposite party which had been entered on the basis of an order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 4.7.1962 appears to be doubtful and he further recorded that according to the pedigree set up by the objectors the land in dispute came to be recorded entirely in the name of Mata Palat the predecessor in interest of respondents objectors since 1282 Fasli which corresponds to 1844 AD. THE Consolidation Officer recorded that the entries in favour of the objectors were supported by documentary evidence and in view of the said long standing entries he presumed that a partition of the properties had taken place on the alternative argument of assuming the pedigree set up by the petitioners to be correct. THE entry therefore in favour of the predecessors in interest of the petitioners was disbelieved which had continued for 22 years between 1970 and 1984. The petitioners went up in appeal and their appeals were allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation holding that since they were entered for the past 22 years after abolition of zamindari and they have filed a summon relating to the proceedings under Section 33/39 of mutation under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, therefore the genuine entry in their favour deserves to be believed. The order of the Consolidation Officer was accordingly set aside. The respondents went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who has reversed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has recorded findings which uphold the conclusion drawn by the Consolidation Officer and has further assumed that on the basis of the pedigree as set up by the petitioners themselves, the partition appears to have been undertaken long before and hence the objections filed by the respondents have been rightly allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioners who were the opposite party in the objection, have filed this writ petition assailing the orders on the ground that if the pedigree as set up by them is correct, then the issue of partition could have been gone into on that basis, but if the pedigree set up is being denied by the respondents then the theory of partition deserves to be disbelieved as the very basis of the claim of the objectors has no legs to stand.
(3.) SRI Anil Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the objection admits the guardianship of Lallan and that could not have been possible, unless the parties belonged to the same family and were governed by the same pedigree. In this view of the matter the findings recorded being contradictory, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error by reversing the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He therefore contends that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He has also filed written submissions. He submits that in view of this admission itself there was no occasion for the authorities to proceed with the case on the basis of an alternative argument and then proceed to decide the matter and if the pedigree has been found to be correct then the matter ought to have been remitted back for trial afresh in relation to the issue of partition. Sri Sharma further urged that if the objectors had set up a claim that they were minors, then they ought to have proved as to when they attained majority and as to why they did not take steps for expunging of the entries, as such in the absence of any such finding the objection deserves to be rejected. In short the contention is that the findings recorded are contrary to the pleadings of the objectors as they had denied the pedigree altogether. ;