S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer which has been passed in proceeding under section 9-A (2) of the U.P.C H. Act. Initially the dispute related to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 10 and 11 situated in village Bighani, District Allahabad. In respect to the land comprised in Khata No. 10 name of the respondent No. 4 was recorded in basic year in which petitioner claimed co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share. In respect to the land comprised in Khata No. 11 which was recorded in the basic year records in the name of Kewlapati, respondent No. 4, petitioner claimed rights on various grounds in respect to the 3/4th. On the final disposal of the matter although in respect to the land comprised in Khata No. 11 petitioner was given half share only by Consolidation Officer but that has now become final claim in respect to the Khata No. 10 is not now under challenge in this petition. The dispute in this petition is confined to the land comprised in Khata No. 10 which is said to be plot Nos. 241/1 0-4-10; 94/1 0-11-0 : 27 0-16-0 and 117/1 0-5-0. Claim of the petitioner was based on the ground that the land is ancestral coming down from the time of the common ancestors Sadho and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to half share. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that in 1358 fasli land was recorded exclusively in the name of Gudar Singh as his Khudkasht and in fact since before the Zamindari Abolition and thereafter the name of respondents continued to be recorded without any claim from the petitioner side. It has to be treated to be the self-acquired land or in any view of the matter the petitioner having no right in the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer after taking the oral and documentary evidence rejected the petitioner's claim upon which appeal was filed, that was also dismissed and thereafter revision filed by the petitioner also failed and thus all the three judgments are under challenge in this petition.
(2.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer is totally perverse and is based on misreading of the documentary evidence. Further submission is that oral evidence as has been adduced from the side of the petitioner has not been considered and thus there is an error apparent in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer which has been further dittoed by the appellate authority and the Revisional Court in the same fashion without there being any independent examination of oral and documentary examination in a cursory manner. To establish the perversity in the finding of the Courts below a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in which copy of extract of 1333 fasli has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the supplementary affidavit. Submission is that the petitioner's claim of co-tenancy is established as admittedly at one point of time land was recorded in the name of common ancestor and therefore for omission of petitioner's name there must be some order and opposite party has to prove ouster but as nothing has been proved impugned judgments need interference.
(3.) In response to the aforesaid Sri Rai learned Advocate submits that finding on the question of fact has been recorded by all the three Courts which is based on oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, no interference is required in the writ jurisdiction. Submission is that in view of the own statement of Apmani the Consolidation Officer has rightly recorded a finding about partition and thus long standing entry in the name of the respondents without any objection from the petitioner side clearly disentitles him to claim any cotenancy rights. Submission is that the entry of 1333 and 1358 fasli has been rightly taken note of and the finding which has been recorded by the Courts below being based on the own admission of the petitioner no exception can be taken to it.;