- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur and also by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,. Jaunpur in proceedings under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner in short is that the name of one Smt. Nanki was wrongly recorded over the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this entry is without any basis and without any order for making the same in the revenue records. It is further submitted that this entry was made some -time in the year 1962. On coming to know regarding the aforesaid entry, the petitioner states that she had filed a Suit under Section 229 -B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was dismissed by the Trial -Court. At the appellate stage, the same was ordered to abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is thereafter the objection was filed by the petitioner. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the name of Smt. Nanki was ordered to be recorded in the year 1962 during the first consolidation operations. The order remained unchallenged and became final, especially after the issuance of Notifications under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act. The D.D.C. in the impugned order has recorded that since the name of Nanki was continuing in the revenue records from the first consolidation operations and she had executed a registered sale -deed of her recorded share and on the basis whereof, the name of the purchaser was also recorded, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point -out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. He, however, has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 77. The aforesaid judgment deals with declaration of co -tenancy rights. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the reliance thereupon is misplaced. The petitioner is not claiming co -tenancy rights but in fact challenging grant of co -tenancy rights to Smt. Nanki during the first consolidation operations. The writ petition lacks merits, and is accordingly dismissed.;