B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed against the orders of the consolidation authorities.
(2.) THE facts are few and simple. In respect of Khata No. 43 situate in village Mamarkha and in respect of Khata Nos. 76 and 345 in village Jargon, the Petitioners filed objection claiming co -tenancy rights against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the basis that the plots were ancestral acquisition and their ancestors were co -tenants from the commencement of the tenancy and since after the death of their ancestor Banshraj, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession. But by mistake their names were not entered in the revenue papers, hence the names of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 may be entered. The case of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in these khatas was contested by the recorded tenure -holders, namely, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. It was alleged by them that they were sole tenants and the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were not the co -tenants.
(3.) IN respect of Khata Nos. 447, 448, 444, 446 and 443 etc. the Respondent No. 6 Satya Marain alias Devi Prasad riled an objection claiming co -tenancy rights on the basis that his father Sheo Murat died in 1943 and pre -deceased Banshraj, the grandfather and after the death of Banshraj the name of his uncles Beni Prasad and Shobhnath, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 alone were entered. Hence they were also entitled to succeed in view of Section 35 U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 even after the death of his father.;