S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners. No one has appeared for the respondents although list is revised.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the Consolidation Officer and the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of in so far it is against the petitioners. Initially the dispute related to land comprised In Khata No. 23, 203 and 206 which was recorded in the basic year records in the name of the person of the branch of Kanhai and Ahibaran and only Bhulai from the branch of Baksh. Pedigree has been given in para No. 2 of the writ petition which has been perused for the purpose of the case. Objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners claiming entry of their names also on the ground that they are the sons of the Baksh and alongwith Bhulai their name be also recorded. Claim of the petitioners was resisted by the sons of Bhulai namely Bechan and Chandresh, respondent Nos. 12 and 13 on the ground that the petitioners are not from the branch of Baksh rather they are from the branch of Kanhai and they have no claim for recording their name alongwith Bhulai. The Consolidation Officer repelled the objections of the respondents in so far it related to the parentage of the petitioners and a finding has been recorded that the petitioners are the sons of Baksh and thus they are brother of Bhulai. After recording of the aforesaid finding petitioners' claim on the merits has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were filed i.e. one by the petitioners and the other by the respondents, challenging the finding of the Consolidation Officer that the petitioners are from the branch of Baksh. The appeal filed by the respondents No. 12 and 13 was dismissed and thus the finding that the petitioners are from the branch of Baksh was affirmed. So far the appeal of the petitioners are concerned it was partly allowed and petitioners were accepted to be co-tenant with Bhulai for and the land of Khata Nos. 203 and 206 petitioners claim was rejected. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. one by the petitioners and the other by the respondents Nos. 12 and 13. Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the revision of the respondents affirmed the finding in respect k the parentage of the petitioners that they are from the branch of Baksh but at the same time the-judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect to the land of Khata Nos. 203 and 206 was also maintained by dismissing the petitioners revision. It is thus against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation by which the petitioners claim in respect to the Khata Nos. 2.03 and 206 has been rejected, petitioners have filed this petition.
(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the facts and evidence as has come on record specially in view of the admission of the opposite party it has been clear that the entire land was once recorded in the name of Ghirrai, common ancestors of the party. It is submitted that it is thereafter at some point of time the name of Jeorakhan or Kanhai or Ahibaran or Bhulai came to be recorded but at the same time the respondents have not been able to prove any document or any cogent material that any fresh settlement has taken place with the branch of Jeorakhan, Kanahai, Ahibaran and Bhulai of branch of Baksh and therefore, it is argued that the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have erred in negating petitioner's claim. It is further submitted that main stand is by the respondent Nos. 12 and 13 happened to be that the petitioners are not of the branch of Baksh and thus all the three Courts having given finding against the respondents, on the facts petitioners are entitled to gel their claim accepted.;