Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Shukla, Advocate and Sri R.D. Khare, Advocate appearing for contesting parties in both the writ petitions.
(2.) These two writ petitions arise out of same order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31st August, 1974 passed in two revisions under section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) Facts giving rise to these writ petitions, briefly stated, are; first writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2895 of 1975 has been filed by Sri Raghubir Mishra challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31st August, 1974. Dispute relate to Khata No. 54/1 and Khata No. 108. In the basic year name of Raghubir, the petitioner, along with respondents No. 3 to 6 were recorded. Family tree has been given in order of Deputy Director of Consolidation with regard to which there is no dispute. Ram Saran had two sons, Mahabir and Rabhubir, the petitioner. Respondents No. 3 to 6 are sons of Mahabir. Both Raghubir and Mahabir had half share in the land in dispute. Respondents No. 3 to 6 had sold their half share to Girish Dutt, respondent No. 2, vide sale deed dated 4th March, 1955. Raghubir Mishra, the petitioner claimed 2/3rd share in Khata No. 108 on the ground that other co-tenure holders have executed sale deed of their share. With regard to Khata No. 61 objection of respondent No. 2 was allowed against which appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Revision No. 602 was filed against the said order which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 31st August, 1974. Revision No. 629 was filed by Sri Raghubir Mishra with regard to Khata No. 54/1. Sole tenancy was claimed by Sri Raghubir Mishra on the basis of decree passed in Suit No. 1110/1954 and 2/3rd share was claimed in Khata No. 108. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order held that no evidence has been given for proving 2/3rd share of the petitioner, Raghubir Mishra, with regard to Khata No. 108 and the Courts below have rightly given half share. With regard to Khata No. 54/1, the Deputy Director of Consolidation partly allowed the revision and directed for recording Plots No. 34, 88, 118, 158/2, 165 and 362 in the name of petitioner Raghubir Mishra alone. Fifty six dismal area of Plot No. 118 was directed to be recorded in the name of respondents. In Plots No. 285, 364, 352 both the parties were given half share. Raghubir Mishra, the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 31st August, 1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of first writ petition.;