B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. The Petitioners have made a prayer that these orders may be quashed.
(2.) THE plots in dispute are contained in Khata Nos. 21, 23, 24, 309, 202, 224, 226 and 227. In the basic year khatauni the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were recorded over khata Nos. 21 and 309. Similarly over other kbatas also entries were made in the names of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 etc. The Petitioners filed an objection Under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming co -tenancy rights on the basis that the plots were ancestral acquisition and in any case the plots were acquired during the jointers of the family with the joint family funds. But somehow the names of only contesting Respondents appear. A pedigree was given. In that pedigree the Petitioners were descendants of the branch of Ram Jatan whereas the contesting Respondents were of the branch of Harnam. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contested the Petitioners' claim and alleged that they were the sole tenure holders and the Petitioners were not the co -tenure -holders and that the objection of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer partly decided the case in favor of the Petitioners. Thereafter the Petitioners preferred appeals and the contesting Respondents also filed appeals. The appeals of the Petitioners were dismissed whereas the appeals of the contesting Respondents were allowed. Revisions were filed by the Petitioners which were also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. These orders have been challenged by the present petition.;