Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri K.D. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash Chandra appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to khata Nos. 30, 92 and 189. In the basic year khata No. 30 was recorded in the name of petitioners, khata No. 92 was entered in the name of petitioners as well as opposite party Nos. 3 to 5 and khata No. 189 was entered exclusively in the name of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. An objection under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 inter-alia on the ground that entries in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in respect of khata Nos. 30 and 92 were forged and fictitious liable to be expunged and exclusively sirdari rights was claimed by them over the said two khatas. The objection was contested by the petitioners on the ground that name of Devi Dayal, father of the petitioners, was recorded on the basis of an application moved by him in 1920 which was not opposed by Bharati Lal and Banshi Lal, the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and other co-tenure holders. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.6.1979 dismissed the objection filed by contesting respondents for recording their names exclusively and while maintaining the basic year entries determined the shares of the parties in respect of said two khatas namely, khata Nos. 30 and 92. The appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and he held that both the parties are co-sharer in all the three khatas and further determined the share of the petitioners to be 16th in all the three khatas. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner failed revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that khata No. 189 was not subject matter of dispute as no objection was filed by anybody with regard to the said khata. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction to decide the title and share of the parties in respect of the said khata. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents has urged that since the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that both the parties are co-sharer of the property' in dispute and hence rightly determined the share.;