KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitions and Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents.
(2.) BEFORE the consolidation authorities, the dispute between the parties was with regard to plot no. 177/229 -A, 177/229 -B, 177, 178 and 220. In the basic year the said plots were recorded in the name or Ram Deo, the father of the present petitioners. Respondent nos. 4 to 12 filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming co -tenancy rights on the basis that the plots were ancestral and they are entitled to share therein according to the pedigree. The pedigree of the parties as set out in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer is as under: Gurdayal/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ / /Ganga Prasad Tulsi Raghu Nath/ / /Ram Deo Sukh Nandan Bhagwan/ / / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - // / / / / / /Budhi Ram Ram Kishan Panna Shree Ram Sobhnanth Jawahir /(Petitioner) (Petitioner) (R -9) (R -10) (R -11) (R -12) // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/ / / / / Latur Markendey Harihar Rajendra Matru(R -4) (R -5) (R -6) (R -7) (R -8) The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 4.2.1974 allowed the objection with regard to khata nos. 177/229 -A, 177/229 -B, 177 and 220 and respondent nos. 4 to 8 and 9 to 12 were held to be co -sharer along with petitioners. The claim of respondents with regard to plot no. 178 was dismissed. Both the parties filed appeals. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 23.11.1974 allowed the appeal filed in respect of plot nos. 177 and 220, while the appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed. The revisions were filed by both the parties. The Deputy director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.2.1979 set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
(3.) SRI T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that respondents had filed objection only with regard to plot nos. 177/229 -A and 177/229 -B hence their claim for co -tenancy could not be considered for other plots in view of the bar created by Section 11 -A of the Act.;