B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.1.1972 and 13.04.1972.
(2.) IN the present writ petition the dispute is about khata Nos. 5, etc. of village Dariyaopur, Pargana and Tahsil Paui, District I ratapgarh. The plots of these khatas were recorded in the name of Ori son of Chain and after his death in the name of his son Bhuar who died leaving behind his son Dargahi who was minor at the time of his death and his mother Smt. Duija was appointed as the guardian. Smt. Duija being the guardian appointed by the court, applied for obtaining the permission of the District Judge to make the transfer in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that the permission was granted on 07.03.1964 and in pursuance thereof registered sale -deed was executed on 04.05.1964 in favour of Respondent No. 11 Sri Jai Karan alias Jagat Pal in respect of Khata No. 5. Thereafter the consolidation operations commenced and a dispute arose in respect of khata no 5. Respondent No. 11 etc. filed an objection Under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be entered in the revenue papers as bhumidhar on the basis of the registered sale deed executed by Smt. Duija, guardian of the minor Dargahi after obtaining the permission Under Section 29 of the Act. He also claimed rights as sirdar in the alternative Under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Petitioner, on the other hand filed an objection in reply to that of Respondent No. 11 etc. alleging that he was another vendee and the sale -deed in favour of Respondent No. 11 was illegal and the name of the Petitioner may be entered as bhumidhar. Despondent Nos. 6 and 7 Brijlal and Jhagru claimed to be the co -tenure holders in khata No. 5.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer decided the case against the Petitioner and held the other persons including Brijlal, Jhagru etc. to be co -tenants of the land in dispute by order dated 01.04.1971. The parties preferred different appeals. The appeal of the Petitioner was allowed and he was held to be a co -tenant by order dated 24.09.1971. Respondent No. 11 Jai Karan alias Jagat Pal preferred a revision which has been allowed by order dated 22.01.1972. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held the Respondent No. 11 to have no right on the basis of order for permission of sale or sale deed matured sirdari rights Under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.;