D.N.Jha, J. - (1.) NISHAN has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated November 21, 1969 contained in An nexure 3.
(2.) THE case set out in the petition is that one Chaudhi was the tenure-holder of plot No. 215 in the First Settlement, 291 in the Se cond Settlement and thereafter plot No. 1281 situate in village Durga-gan, Pargana and Tahsil Bilgram, District Hardoi. He was recorded as such in 1308 Fasli. His son Saktey died during the life time of Chaudhi and when Chaudhi died, the petitioner was minor. The mother of the petitioner, having nobody to support, remarried one Mulla and started living with him. The petitioner also resided with his mother. The petitioner was minor and as such Mulla was looking after the cultivation and his name was entered in revenue papers first along with the minor and thereafter along with one Sobaran. It is .stated that this entry in his name and that of Sobaran was entered as chief tenants by the collusion of the village Lekhpal. The petitioner in the year 1942 joined Defence Services and thereafter he was discharged in the year 1947 and he settled down in his village and started looking after his cultivation. The petitioner discovered that incorrect entries existed in the revenue recqr'ds in favour of Mulia and Sobaran and hence he applied for correction of papers. Mulla and Sobaran in those proceedings made statements in favour of the petitioner and the learn ed Tehsildar ordered that the name of the petitioner be recorded as Sir dar of the land in dispute. The entries were not corrected and hence the petitioner filed a Regular Suit for declaration. The suit was dismissed whereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner vide order dated August 26, 1964. The Second Appeal against this order was filed but on account of the consolidation opera tions the Board of Revenue could not decide and the appeal stood abated. The plot No. 1261 measuring 3 Bighaas 10 Biswas of Khata No. 219 in the basic year was recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite parties Puttai, Jharman Lal and Ram Dayal. The petitioner preferred an objection claiming exclusive Sirdari rights over the plot. This claim was disputed by the opposite parties and as such the dispute came up before the Consolidation Officer. The Consoli dation Officer vide his order dated June 7, 1967 allowed the objection and ordered that the names of Puttai, Jharman Lal and Ram Dayal sons of Maiku be expunged. Certified copy, of this order is Annexure 1. The opposite parties filed an appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated Novem ber 4, 1967 by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). There after, the opposite parties filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The learned Deputy Director' of Consolidation vide his order dated November 21, 1967 allowed the revision and directed the opposite parties to be recorded as co-tenants in the land in dispute. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up before this court challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation.
(3.) THE petition is_ resisted on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is admitted that the suit for declaration was filed and the Second Appeal pending be fore the Board of Revenue stood abated and it is asserted that after the death of Chaudhi the tenancy was re- settled in the name of Mulla, the relation of the parties. It is denied that Mulla and Sobaran had made any statement admitting the exclusive title of the petitioner over the disputed land. They have relied on the statement made by the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as Annexure C-l and they have asserted that the claims of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 were almost admitted.;