Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) The pedigree relevant for deciding the controversy in issue is as follows.
(2.) The dispute relates to different plots of Khata No. 1078. In the basic year consolidation record name of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (the contesting respondents) was recorded. Madhuban father of petitioner filed his objection claiming that he should be recorded as exclusive owner of the property in dispute. According to him Hubdar died in the year 1964 and thereafter property came to be recorded in the name of Mst. Rajwanti who died some time in the year 1967 and after her death the property should come to him as he is real brother of Hubdar and preferential heir. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the contesting respondents. According to them Madhuban was not son of Sukhraj but was son of some other person and had come alongwith his mother when she had married Sukhraj.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 2.11.1972 allowed the objection of petitioner holding that Madhuban is son of Sukhraj and after death of Mst. Rajwanti property devolved on him. The contesting respondents filed appeal. This appeal was partly allowed in respect of plot No. 4154, 4155 and 4167 on the ground that these plots did not come from Hubdar but were stetted by Zamindar with them. However, so far as remaining plots were concerned, the appeal was dismissed. Both the sides filed revisions. Both these revisions were decided by the DDC on 24.4.1981. The revision of the petitioner was dismissed and the revision of contesting respondent was allowed, hence the present writ petition.;