Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dinesh Pathak appearing for contesting respondent No. 4.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under : Contesting respondent No. 4 filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'Act') claiming co-tenancy right in the khata in dispute on the ground that it was ancestral land. The proceedings were contested by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 4 is a outsider and not member of the family as such is not entitled to claim co-tenancy right. Before the Consolidation Officer contesting respondent No. 4 filed as many as 16 documents in evidence apart from adducing oral evidence. Similarly, the petitioner also filed 16 documents and also adduced oral evidence. The details of the documents and oral evidence adduced by the parties have been mentioned in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer framed as many as 17 issues for adjudication. Vide order dated 16.12.2000, the claim of contesting respondent No. 4 was allowed and he was held to be co-tenant along with the petitioner to the extent of half share. Aggrieved, the petitioner went up in appeal. The Appellate Court vide order dated 3.5.2003 dismissed the appeal. The revision filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 12.11.2003. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the Consolidation Officer framed as many as 17 issues and also noted the details of various documentary evidence adduced by the parties but without considering the evidence brought on record either oral or documentary or even discussing the case of the parties, allowed the claim of the contesting respondent by a slip short judgment. It has further been urged that same mistake has been repeated by the appellate Court as well as Revisional Court inasmuch as both of them have also failed to discuss the respective case of the contesting parties and their judgments are devoid of any reasoning.;