ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.C. Murkherji, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raj Kumar Verma, learned counsel for contesting respondents , learned State Counsel.
(2.) BY means of present writ petition , petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 2.4.1985 ( Annexure no.3) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur. Sri D.C. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in the present case relates to Khata no.68 of village Dudawal Pargana and Tehsil Mishrikh District Sitapur ( hereinafter referred to as ' property in dispute') recorded in the basic year in the name of Pancham, the father of the petitioners . He further submits that upon the start of consolidation proceedings in the village under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act ( herein after referred as 'Act'), respondent no.2. Mihilal (now deceased) filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming co-tenancy rights on the aforesaid land in dispute with Pancham, father of the petitioners on the basis of the pedigree mentioned below :- Champa | ----------------------------------------------- | | Pancham Parwan | Mihi Lal He further submits that the said co-tenancy rights has been claimed by opposite party no.2/ Mihi Lal on the ground that land in disputed has been acquired through fund of Joint Hindu Family property. The said claim of Mihi Lal has been opposed by Pancham , father of present petitioners, on the ground that the land in question was acquired by Sri Pancham alone that it is his sole tenancy and Mihi Lal / opposite party no.2 was neither in possession nor he has any share in it. By order dated 14.12.1977, the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of opposite party No.2 . Aggrieved by the same, opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.8.1979 and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh.
(3.) THEREAFTER , the Consolidation Officer on the basis of material on record and as per the pleadings of the parties, dismissed the objection of Mihi Lal/ opposite party no.2 vide judgment and order dated 31.3.1980. Aggrieved by the same , Mihi Lal preferred an appeal , dismissed by Settlement Officer Consolidation , Sitapur vide jdugment and order dated 5.8.1981 holding that the land in question belongs to Pancham, father of the petitioners. Against the aforesaid judgments passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation , Sri Mihi Lal filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation , allowed by judgment and order dated 2.4.1985 ( Annexure no.3) it has been erroneously held that the land in dispute was the joint family property of Parwan (father of Mihi Lal) and Pancham but recorded in the name of Pancham in representative capacity and as such opposite party no.2 / Mihi Lal is co-tenent with Pancham having half share on the land in dispute. Aggrieved by the said fact present writ petition has been filed before this Court.;