ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petition No. 2416 of 1975 (hereinafter referred to as first writ petition) and Writ Petition No 2246 of 1976 (hereinafter referred to as second writ petition), having been heard together, are being decided by a common judgment.
(2.) I have heard Sri Swaraj Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in first writ petition and Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned Counsel, appearing for the contesting respondents in first writ prtition. Sri Dinesh Pathak has appeared for petitioners in second writ petition and Sri Swaraj Prakash has appeared for contesting respondents in second writ petition. Facts giving rise to first writ petition, briefly stated, are: dispute arose between the parties during consolidation proceedings held in the village. Dispute relates to Khatas No. 127, 145 and 388. In basic year records Ram Achal, the petitioner, and respondent Nos. 3, and 4, Ram Asrey and Shiv Prasad, were recorded over Khatas in dispute. Objection was filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (thereafter referred to as the Act) claiming 2/3rd share. Respondent Nos. 5 to 6 also filed objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming co -tenancy rights. There were other objections filed under Section 9 of the Act which are not relevant to be noted for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy raised in first writ petition. There is no dispute between the parties that Khatas in dispute were acquired by common ancestor, Jurawan, whose name was recorded in 1322 Fasli. Smt. Hansraj was wife of Jurawan. Hansraji had two daughters, Balta and Guljari. Balta was married to Jagarnath and Guljari to Ramesar. Petitioner, Ram Achal, is son of Ramesar and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claimed to be branch of Jagarnath. Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 also claimed to be sons of Jagarnath and Balta. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 5th Septemebr, 1974 gave 2/3rd share to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Ram Asrey and Shiv Prasad and petitioner, Ram Achal, was given 1/3rd share. Objection of Ram Milan and others, respondent No. 5 to 9, was rejected. Petitioner, Ram Achal, as well as respondent No. 5 to 9 filed appeals against the order of Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 8th January, 1974 allowed the appeal of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 to 9. The petitioner was given half share in Khatas No. 127, 145 and 388, along with Ram Asrey and Shiv Prasad, names of respondent No. 5 to 9 were directed to be recorded as co -sharers and Ram Asrey was given 1/3rd, Shiv Prasad was given 1/3rd share and Ram Milan and others were given 1/3rd share. Revision No. 711 was filed by respondent No. 3 to 4 challenging the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation regarding Khatas No. 388, 127 and 145. Revisions filed by respondent No. 3 and 4 was allowed and the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been set -aside. Petitioner, Ram Achal has filed the first writ petition challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3rd December, 1974 and the order of Consolidation Officer dated 5th September, 1973.
(3.) THE second writ petition has been filed by Ram Asrey and Shiv Prasad challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16th September, 1976 and those of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 30th September, 1975 and Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30th September, 1975 . After the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3rd December 1974, a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 3392 of 1975 was filed by respondent No. 4 to 8, Ram Milan and others challenging the said order. The said writ petition was rejected on 21st March, 1975 by following order of this Couert: Petitioners grievance is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set -aside the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) giving the petitioners 1/3 share without considering their case. I am unable to agree. I have read the judgment carefully. Only finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that Ram Achal will have no share in the plots in dispute. The petitioners's share has not been touched much less taken away. The grivenance of the petitioners is imaginary. Rejected. This Court while rejecting the said writ petiton filed by Ram Milan and others on 21st March, 1975 observed that Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 3rd December, 1974 has not touched or taken away the share given to Ram Milan and others. After the order of this Court dated 21st March, 1975 rejecting the writ petition filed by Ram Milan and others, an application was moved by petitioners for preparation of their Chaks in accordance with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3rd December, 1974. On the said application reference was made by Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(3) of the Act to clarify as to whether Ram Milan and others will get share or not. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation also sent reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation that necessary directions be issued under Section 48(3) of the Act. The reference of Assistant Consolidation Officer noted the order of this Court rejecting the writ petiton filed by Ram Milan and others in which it was observed that share of Ram Milan has not been touched by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3rd December, 1974. After the aforesaid reference, the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed an order on 16th September, 1976 under Section 48(3) of the Act observing that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any decision with regard to Ram Milan and according to the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ram Milan and others, have been accepted co -sharers along with Ram Asrey and Shiv Prasad. After giving above clarification the file was sent back to the Assitant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The order dated 16th September, 1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and earlier two orders passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Assistant Consolidation Officer making reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, have been, challenged in the second writ prtition. ;