Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 8.4.1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision arising out of proceedings under section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (For short the Act).
(2.) The dispute relates to the plot No. 178 situate in village Kaitheri District jalaun. In the basic year the said plot was recorded as Sirdari of Smt. Radharani-respondent No. 2 and one Nandrani while petitioners were recorded in class-9 of the Khatauni. During the consolidation operation the petitioners filed an objection that they were in possession over the disputed land since before the date 'of vesting and have perfected the rights by adverse possession. It was also pleaded that Nandrani and respondent No. 2 have never been in possession and Nandrani died long back and both of them had remarried and lost their rights. Another objection was filed by respondent No. 2 Radhrani claiming that land. in dispute belongs to two brothers, Ganga Prasad and Hindupat. On their death the same was inherited by her and Nandrani as their widows and after death of Nandrani her daughter Smt. Sarju came in possession. Another objection was filed by Smt. Sarju on the same grounds. The Consolidation Officer consolidated all the three objections and by order dated 20.9.1973 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner while the other two objections were dismissed. During the pendency of the proceedings before Consolidation Officer an objection was also filed by Gaon Sabha claiming that since both respondent No. 2 and Nandarani had remained after the death of their husbands as such they lost their rights and title in the land in dispute and the same should be vested in the Gaon Sabha. The said objection of Gaon Sabha was also dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the objection can only be filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and not directly before Consolidation Officer. The Gaon Sabha did not challenge the said order and it became final. The respondent No. 2 challenged the order in appeal which was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 18.1.1974. Feeling aggrieved respondent No. 2 filed a revision which came to be allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 9.4.1975.
(3.) The petitioners, in support of their case, filed Khasra of 1366 fasli, 1368 fasli, 1369 fasli and 1370 fasli and Intkliab Khasra of 1371 to 1377 fasli, receipts of land revenue form Pakka-10 and also adduced oral evidence. On behalf of respondent No. 2 only her oral evidence and statement of two witnesses were recorded. No other documentary evidence was adduced by her Respondent No. 2 admitted in her statement that she remarried Pahalwan and Nandrani ramarried Phool Singh after death of their husband.;