Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Though the case has been taken up in revised list, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition relates to plot Nos. 660/1 and 666/1 and 252. In the basic year plot No. 660/1 and 661/1 was recorded in the name of Balesar, the father of the present petitioners and plot No. 252 was recorded in the name of respondent No. 1. With regard to two plot Nos. 660/1 and 661/1 an objection under section 9-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short tire Act) was filed by the respondent No. 1 claiming co-tenancy rights. Another objection was filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha with regard to the same plots that it was a public utility land and should be vested in Gaon Sabha. With regard to the oilier plot No. 252 an objection was filed by the father of the petitioner on the ground that grove was planted over the same by him with the permission of Zamindar and as such after the date of vesting he has become Bhumidhar. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.1.1995 dismissed the objection filed by the respondent No. 1 and Gaon Sabha with regard to plot Nos. 660/1 and 661/1. With regard to other plot No. 252 the objection filed by the father of the petitioners was allowed Against the aforesaid judgment of the Consolidation Officer appeals were filed by Gaon Sabha as well as respondent No. 1. The Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated all the appeals and vide common order dated 17.9.1973 held that all the plots in dispute shall be vested in Gaon Sabha. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners as well as respondents No. 1 and 2 filed revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 5.7.1976. With regard to plot Nos. 660/1 and 661/1 finding has been recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation that in 1348 Fasli the said land is recorded as Banjar and as such it belongs to Gaon Sabha. Further finding has been recorded that the petitioners have failed to prove their claims over the said plots. With regard to plot No. 252 also the Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a finding that the said plots belongs to Gaon Sabha.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners could not produce evidence to substantiate and establish rights over the land in dispute before Settlement Officer Consolidation. However, subsequently, a large number of documentary evidence was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.1.1975 admitted the said documents in evidence on payment of Rs 30 as costs and subject to chance of rebuttal to the opposite parties. Though the said document were admitted yet Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider the s.tine while deciding the revision. It has further been urged that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioners has not also been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;