Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the validity and correctness of the orders dated 26.5.1987 and 18.7.1990 passed by respondent No. 2 arising out of the proceedings under Section 143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. THE petitioners have also challenged the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial) First, Varanasi Region, Varanasi dismissing Revision No. 49 of 1999 filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid orders passed by the Up-Zila Adhikari Machchlishahar, district Jaunpur. Background of the case : The dispute in the writ petition is with regard to new plot No. 538 area 0.08 acre which was carved out during consolidation proceedings corresponding to old plot No. 1958/4 area 0.08 acre situate in village Gauriadeeh, Pargana Mungra Tehsil Machchlisahar, district Jaunpur. The land in dispute was formerly under the tenancy of Mahadeo son of Girdhari and Ram Autar son of Shivbheekh with transferable rights. Mahadeo son of Girdhari executed a registered sale-deed on 5th July, 1926 in respect of half share of old plot No. 1958/4 area 4 decimal alongwith other plots in favour of Kedar Nath, the predecessor of the petitioners.
(3.) THEREAFTER another registered sale-deed was executed by Ram Autar son of Shivbheekh also in favour of Kedar Nath in respect of half share of old plot No. 1958/4. Thus, Kedar Nath became bhumidhar over the land in dispute after enforcement of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In the basic year khatauni the names of Kedar Nath and other petitioners were recorded as bhumidhar. The chak was also carved out in their names. The petitioners have filed C.H. Form Nos. 23, 41 and 45, which have been appended as Annexure-SA-1, 2 and 3 respectively along with the supplementary-affidavit. The following is the pedigree of the petitioners. Kedar Ghanshyam Ramesh Shitla Lalit Shailendra Shiv Chand Prasad Mohan Kumar Prasad Surya Prakash The counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to form No. 2A which is prepared before the consolidation proceedings and to C.H. form Nos. 41 prepared during the consolidation proceedings and to form No. 45 which is final record of holding to show that plot No. 538 (new) corresponds to old plot No. 1958/4 and that the nature of land before and after the consolidation proceedings is recorded as abadi. In C.H. form No. 45 prepared after the consolidation proceedings the names of Kedar Nath father of the petitioners as well as petitioners recorded over plot No. 538 area 0.08 acre as tenure holder. Khataunis 1393 fasli to 1394 fasli have also been brought on record showing their names as tenure-holder over plot No. 538 area 0.08 acre. Facts of the case.;