Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) There are two khatas in dispute in this present writ petition. The plots of Khata No. 351 were recorded in the basic year in the name of Saral. The plots of Khata No. 179 were recorded in the co-tenancy of Saral and the respondents 3 and 4 Smt. Jasia and Samarajia. Two sets of objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer: one by the petitioner Smt. Tilasari claiming inheritance from Saral as her sister and the other by respondents 3 and 4 who denied that the petitioner Tilasari was Saral's sister and claimed sole tenancy rights on plots of both Khatas. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioner and dismissed that of the respondents 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by the petitioner in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4.
(3.) It was submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the finding that the petitioner is not the sister of Saral is perverse and is vitiated by error of law; that the case of the respondents 3 and 4 originally was that Ganesh father of Saral did not have a daughter but when the Consolidation Officer dismissed their objections they filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal an extract of the death register showing that the daughter of Ganesh had died in the year 1935. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has relied upon this extract of the death register, which according to the petitioner is a forged document. Before the Deputy Director Consolidation the petitioner had filed an application for summoning the original death register and the Deputy Director Consolidation on 4.2.1987 allowed the application. The original death register was also produced but the Deputy Director Consolidation has not made any observations about the register as the entries therein and has not considered whether in the light of those entries the copy of the extract of the register filed by the respondents could be relied upon. The other submission made by Sri R.S. Mishra is that the respondents 3 and 4 have no right to succeed to the plots of Khata No. 351, which was recorded solely in the .name of Saral and that the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation have not given any reason for allowing the objections of the respondents 3 and 4 in respect of this Khata and that the respondents 3 and 4 are not the heirs of Saral in view of their relationship with him as shown in the pedigree and are not entitled to inherit under section 171 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Sri R.P. Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that there is ample material on the record on the basis of which the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 over the plots of Khata No. 351 can be sustained but the said material has not been referred to in the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director Consolidation and this question requires reconsideration by the Deputy Director Consolidation. He also submitted that there is also proof on the record that respondents 3 and 4 were continuing in possession and have perfected their rights. Thus, Counsel for both the parties have submitted that the case should be remanded to the Deputy Director Consolidation although on different points.;