R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'certiorari quashing the order dated 21.7.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year names of both the parties were recorded on Khata No. 22 of village Jadopur, Allahabad, hereinafter referred to as "the land in dispute". Objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short "the Act', was filed by the father of respondents No. 2 to 4 claiming that he was entitled to 2/3rd share in the land in dispute and share of the petitioners was only 1/3. The petitioners contested the objection filed by the father of the respondents No. 2 to 4. They pleaded that the land in dispute was ancestral and as per admitted pedigree, they had 1/2 share in it. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer after going through the entire evidence on the record came to the conclusion that both the parties were entitled to 1/2 share each in the land in dispute, which was ancestral on the basis of the pedigree of the family, by his judgement and order dated 29.6.1985. Challenging the validity of the said order, an appeal was filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4, as by that time, their father was dead and in his place they were substituted. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also affirmed the findings record by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 17.3.1986. The contesting respondents thereafter filed a r revision before respondent No. 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after reappraising the material on the record without upsetting the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation in accordance with law, substituted his own findings for the findings recorded by the authorities below and allowed the revision holding that the respondents No. 2 to 4 were entitled to 2/3 share in the land in dispute, by his judgment and order dated 21.7.1988, hence the present petition.;