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, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.6.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that in the basic year the land in dispute, i.e. Khata No. 236 was recorded in the name of Ghasi, son of Ram Charan, father of respondents No. 2 and 3. Petitioner filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of one half share pleading that the land in dispute was acquired by the common ancestor. The name of Ram Charan s/o Ghasi was recorded in the representative capacity only. Therefore, the entries made in the names of Ghasi and others were liable to be expunged and corrected in accordance with the law. The objection filed by the petitioner was objected to and contested by the contesting respondents, who have pleaded that the petitioner was not the son of Raghunath but he was the son of Bhagwantia, sister of Raghunath, therefore, he had no share in the land in dispute. As the matter could not be settled before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by reconciliation, the same was referred to the Consolidation Officer for decision. The Consolidation Officer, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed necessary issues. Parties in support of their submissions produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer, after going through the evidence on the record, allowed the objection filed by the petitioner by judgment and order dated 8.11.1976 after recording findings on relevant issues in favour of the petitioner. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by the contesting respondents before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation also dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 20.3.1979. Contesting respondents thereafter challenged the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short 'the Act'. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision by the judgment and order dated 9.6.1983. Hence the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;