S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 24.6.1974 and 31.1.1974 respectively.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act which is in respect to adjudication of title between the parties. Parties went to trial in respect to land situated in three villages namely Nivi Dubey, Bhiti Dubey and Baisukhia Khurd Pargana Chillupar district Gorakhpur. The land is comprised in various Khatas, the details of which has been given in the judgments and therefore, they are not required to be mentioned at this stage Over some of khatas name of petitioner s side was recorded and over some of khatas. name of respondent No. 4 was recorded. Objection was filed by petitioner for expunction of name of respondent No. 4 in respect to five khatas over which, he was recorded. The ground was that respondent No. 4 was adopted by Shiv Poojan and as such , he ceased to have a right or interest in the ancestral property. Otherwise also, he ceased to be in possession over the land in dispute. The contention of petitioner was resisted by respondent No. 4 on the ground that there being a compromise decree passed in Original Suit No. 823 of 1925 in the Court of Munsif in which he has been . accepted to be co-tenant and therefore, he is entitled to get his rights accepted. Upon evidence having been led by parties. the Consolidation Officer by judgment dated 24.2.1973 allowed the objection of petitioner holding that Ram Naresh has no right or interest in both type of Khatas i.e. one in which he was recorded and other in which he was not recorded. The judgment of Consolidation Officer was appealed by the opposite party. The appellate authority partly allowed the claim of respondent and in respect to Khata over which his name was recorded, his claim was accepted and over the land over which he 'Was not recorded, claim was rejected. Against the judgment of appellate authority both parties field revision. Petitioner's revision was dismissed and the revision filed by respondent was allowed and in the entire land, opposite party was accepted to be co-tenant. Thus both judgments of revisional Court and the appellate authority are under challenge.
(3.) Parties learned Counsel were heard at length. Supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavits besides original pleadings have been perused.;