Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Yadav Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) By this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 16.5.1985 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order dated 26.8.1981 of the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. This writ petition arise out of the proceedings under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In basic year respondent No. 3 was recorded. An objection was filed by the petitioner claiming rights over nine plots of Khata Nos. 89 and 95. An issue No. 3 was framed to the effect, whether the name of Jagarnath son of Nihore in Khata Nos. 89 and 95 is wrongly recorded? Parties led evidence. Petitioner claimed right on the basis of sale deed dated 4.5.1937. The sale deed was executed by Ram Nihore in favour of Jagarnath. There has been earlier dispute in which a suit was filed by the father of petitioner No. 4 and one Sukhdeo. The claim was resisted by the respondent No. 4 Jagarnath on basis of sale deed dated 4.5.1937. The suit under section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 was decreed on 19.2.1945. It was held by the Revenue Officer that neither Jagarnath nor his mother Musammat Manakla are the persons entitled to inherit the rights of Ram Nihore.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment dated 18.8.1976 directed the ex-punction of the name or Jagarnath son of Nihore from Khata No. 89 and 95. The claim of writ petitioner was accepted with regard to Khata Nos. 89 and 95. The Consolidation Officer also relied on the judgment passed in case No. 174 under section 59 of the U.P Tenancy Act. An appeal was filed by Jagarnath. In the appeal reliance was placed on sale deed dated 4.5.1937 pertaining to nine plots. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation took the view that Jagarnath got share in those plots which were sold by Nihore. The sale deed was relied. The order of the Consolidation Officer in expunging the name of Jagarnath was set aside. A revision was filed by the petitioner against the said order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Revisional Court in its judgment dated 16.5.1985 held that a sale deed dated 28.3.1959 pertaining to five plots namely, 341, 378, 252, 253 and 1076 has been executed in favour of the petitioners (revisionists) by Jagarnath son of Kalka, the claim of the revisionists with regard to five plots was accepted on basis of no objection given in the revision. The revision was allowed with regard to aforesaid five plots and the name of Jagarnath son of Kalka was directed to be expunged. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners in so far as it does not consider the claim of the petitioners with regard to rest four plots.;