D.N.JHA,J. - (1.) PETITIONERS Babu Singh and Jamuna Singh have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation dated August 19, 1969 contained in Annexure-4-to this petition.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that plot Nos. 496, 50012, 312 and 820 of Khata No. 510 situate in village Gaura, Tahsil Bilgra, District Hardoi were settled with the Zamindar by Chandrika Singh, Surat Singh and his nephew Surjan Singh who constituted a joint Hindu Family. The pedigree relevant for the petition is as under Deo Singh Jagat Singh Narapat Singh Chandrika Singh Surat Singh Surjan Singh X Gokaran Singh X Shanker Singh X Kunjan Singh X Sarju Singh (O.P.4) Nanhoo Singh (O.P.3) Manna Singh(O.P.6) Chobhar Singh (O.P.5) Babu Singh Jamuna Singh Surjan Singh whose name continued to be recorded in the revenue papers as a cotenant deposited ten times rent and obtained a Bhumi-dhari Sanad on February 3, 1966 and on the same date he executed registered sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. When the village came under consolidation operation the village papers were recorded in the names of Surjan Singh. Kunjan Singh, Sarju Singh, Nanhoon Singh, Manna Singh and Chobhar Singh. On publication of record petitioners filed objections claiming for mutation of their names over the disputed plots mentioned above on the basis of sale deed. It may also be mentioned that some other plots had also been claimed to be mutated of Khata No. 143 of the same village. The claim was contest­ed by Nanhoon Singh, Sarju Singh sons of Chandrika Singh and Cho­bhar Singh, Manna Singh sons of Surat Singh who in the present petition have been arrayed as opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 respectively. The dispute was referred to the Consolidation Officer who vide his order dated March 31, 1967 allowed the objections holding that Sur-jan Singh the transferor was a co-tenant in the disputed Khata and was competent to execute the sale-deed and that the sale-deed was executed for the Bhumidhari land. He accordingly allowed l|3rd share to Surjan Singh, 19th share each to Kunjan Singh, Sarju Singh and Nanhoon Singh and he further allocated the share of Munna Singh and Chobhar Singh as l|6th. In place of Surjan Singh he allows the names of the petitioners to be mutated. This order is An-nexure-1 to the petition. The opposite parties, feeling aggrieved by the order, preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consoli­dation but the same was dismissed on September 15, 1967. A certifi­ed copy of this order is Annexure-2. The Settlement Officer Con­solidation was of the view that Surat Singh had acquired co-tenancy rights by estoppel and acquiescence. Kunjan Singh and Nanhoon Singh feeling aggrieved by the order preferred a revision before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. It may be mentioned that Surjan Singh had died on March 23, 1967, viz., prior to the order pass­ed by the Consolidation Officer. After filing of the revision Kunjan Singh died and on his death Sarju Singh was substituted. It may be pointed out that Sarju Singh originally had not filed any revision nor any revision had been preferred by Manna Singh and Chobhar Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after hearing the parties allows the revision vide his order dated August 19, 1969. Certified copy of his order is Annexure-4. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the claim of the petitioners so far as it related to Khata No. 143 but, however, with respect to the present Khata No. 510 he was of opinion that Surjan Singh was not a co-tenure-holder; as such the petitioners could not claim any title. He further ordered that Kun­jan Singh, Surjan Singh and Nanhoon Singh were allowed l6th share each in the disputed plots of the Khata, while Munna Singh and Chobhar Singh were given l4th share each. It is in these cir­cumstances that the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order pass­ed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation have come up before this Court by means of the present petition.
(3.) THE petition has been contested on behalf of opposite parties and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 only. It is stated that the petitioners were the sons of Manna Singh and there­fore opposite parties Nos. 5 and 6 were interested in favour of the petitioners. It is further asserted that Narpat Singh son of Deo Singh was the hereditary tenant of the disputed Khata, Narpat Singh died issueless some 20 to 22 years ago leaving behind Chandrika Singh and Surat Singh. It is further stated that Jagat Singh, bro­ther of Narpat Singh, had predeceased him and as such at the time of the death of Narpat Singh only two brothers Chandrika Singh and Surat Singh were alive. It is asserted that the lant did not devolve upon Surjan Singh, Gokaran Singh and Shankar Singh sons of Jagat Singh. It is also stated that they did not form a joint Hindu family and at the time of death of Narpat Singh every one was living separately and not as members of the joint Hindu family. It is in these circumstances asserted, that Surjan Singh had no right, title or share in the disputed holding and since he was not a co-tenure-holder he could not obtain Bhumidhari Sanad which was fraudulently obtained and the sale-deed executed on February 3, 1966 by Surjan Singh in favour of the petitioners could not entitle the petitioners for mutation. It is in this manner that an attempt has been made to support the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;