Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. No one has appeared for the respondents.
(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.9.1972 passed in Revision No. 2899 and further modifying the order of Consolidation Officer directing the name or respondents No 5, 6 & 7 be expunged from Khata No. 82.
(3.) Dispute arose during proceedings under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Dispute relates to Khata No. 82, Plot No. 424/422 and 540/2. Khata No. 104/1/plot No. 230/1 area 7 biswa 11 dhoors. Khata No. 82 was re- corded in the name of petitioner Nos. 2,3 & 4 and the respondents No. 5, 6 & 7. With regard to Plot No. 230/1 total area 15 biswa 12 dhoors the name of petitioner No. 1 is recorded in Class 9 over area of 7 biswa 11 dhoors and name of petitioners No. 2,3 & 4 were recorded as bhumidar. Sehtu was recorded in Class-9 from 1365 Fasli. With regard to Class 9 entry with regard to plot No. 230/1 area 7 biswa 11 dhoors in which petitioners No. 2, 3 & 4 were recorded, Sehtu appeared before the Consolidation Officer and agreed that his name be struck of. With regard to other half part of Plot No. 230/1 Sehtu filed an objection that name of respondents No. 4 & 6 be expunged. Objections were also filed by respondents No. 6 & 7 claiming that names of petitioners be expunged. The Consolidation Officer decided all the four cases by a common judgement dated 3.3.1972. The objection by respondents No. 6 & 7 in respect of disputed plots were dismissed except Plot No. 230/1 area 7 biswa 11 dhoors. Two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation one by Abdul Vakil, respondent No. 7 and another by Sehtu. Sehtu was aggrieved against the order of Consolidation Officer by which his name was directed to be expunged in Plot No. 230/1 area 7 biswa 11 dhoors and name of respondents No. 6 & 7 were directed to be recorded. Respondents No. 6 & 7 were aggrieved to other part of the order of Consolidation Officer by which their objections were rejected. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation dismissed both the appeals' vide his order dated 23.6.1972. Two revisions were filed against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation one by respondents No. 6 & 7 and other by petitioner No. 1. The claim of respondent No. 7 was that at the time when the sale deed was executed by respondent No. 6 on behalf of respondent No. 7, the respondent No. 7 was minor and the respondent No. 6 being his brother was not natural guardian, the sale deed was void. The respondent No. 7 claimed that the name of the petitioners be expunged. The case of Sehtu before the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that hi. name in Class-9 from 1366-F and 1367-F v, as made in accordance with the provisions of Land Record Manual after issuance of P.A. 10 hence the order of both the Courts below expunging the name of petitioner be set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned judgment dated 30.9.1972 allowed the revision of respondent No. 7 Abdul Vakil and held him to be co-tenant in plots No. 230 and 410 as well as plot No. 424. The revision filed by the petitioner No. 1 Sehtu was dismissed. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders.;