Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) -By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.8.1983, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi.
(2.) THE dispute relates to khata No. 7 situate in village Chak Adhiya district Varanasi which was recorded as mafi dakhalikari (rent-free grantee) of one Sudin. THE undisputed pedigree of Sudin is as under : Sudin = Lakhpati / ------------------------------------- / / Baij Nath Ram Adhar / Smt. Rajesra / / Deo Nath --------------------------------------------------- / / / / / Bikrama Sant Basant Babu Mahadeo Kumar Kumar Nandan After death of Sudin, Baij Nath father of petitioner No. 1 executed sale deed of 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Respondent No. 9 also executed sale deed of the remaining half on his behalf as well as on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as their guardian, since they were minor at that time in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8. On the basis of the aforesaid two sale deeds the name of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was recorded over the disputed khata. During consolidation operations petitioner No. 1 challenged the basic year entry in the name of contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 by filing an objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act seeking declaration in their favour over 1/4th share in the land on the ground that on death of his grandfather Sudin he along with his father Baij Nath inherited 1/2 share jointly and the remaining was inherited by Ram Adhar. Thus, he was entitled to 1/4th share and his father Baij Nath illegally executed sale deed of the entire 1/2 share in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 which was void to the extent of 1/4th share. Another set of objection was filed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 on the ground that their father Ram Adhar inherited 1/2 share of the land in dispute on death of Sudin and after death of Ram Adhar they along with respondent No. 9 inherited 4/10th share each. The sale deed of their shares executed by their brother Bikrama during their minority as guardian was void because their mother was alive at that time and she being the natural guardian any sale deed executed by any other person would be void. Two sets of objection were contested by respondent Nos. 2 to 8 on the ground that during life time of Baij Nath petitioner No. 1 had no share and Bikrama has executed the sale deed as karta khandan.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.5.1981, allowed both the objections. Appeal filed by contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 8 was also dismissed. However, revision filed by them was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 25.8.1983. With regard to the claim of petitioner No. 1 the Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that Sudin died sometimes in between 1309 to 1333 fasli when Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 was enforced and since the land in dispute was mafi (rent-free grantee) the inheritance shall be governed by personal law and both petitioner No. 1 and his father Baij Nath would inherit 1/4th share each and as such sale deed executed by Baij Nath more than of his 1/4th share would be void to that extent.;