B.N.Sapru, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The plots in dispute are Nos. 490, 491, 760 and 487 situate in village Mandaur, Pargana Jhusi, district Allahabad, and is directed against; the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision, dated 10 -9 -1971, whereby he allowed the revision of Mohammad Shafi Respondent No. 2. When consolidation proceedings started, plots Nos. 490 and 491 along with certain other plots, which are no longer in dispute were entered in the name of the Petitioner in class IV. The other two plots namely plots Nos. 760 and 487 were recorded as sirdari land of Mohammad Shafi, Respondent No. 2 and Smt. Nisbatunnissa, Respondent No 3; and the Petitioner was recorded as occupant in ziman 9.
(2.) BEFORE the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Petitioner filed two objections; one in respect of plots Nos. 760 and 487 claiming sirdari rights and the other objection was in respect of plots Nos. 490 and 491 by which the Petitioner claimed sirdari rights over these plots also. Mohammad Shafi, Respondent No. 2 filed these objections claiming sirdari rights in respect of these two plots. Smt. Nisbatunnissa accepted the claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claimed that the plots in suit had come to his grandfather as a result of a partition in the family in 1887. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the Petitioner that the plots in suit came to the grandfather of the Petitioner through a partition, and that the Petitioner's father and thereafter the Petitioner had been in possession of the land in dispute. He also rejected the claim of Mohammad Shafi, Respondent No. 2.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 19 -8 -1971. The Petitioner Mohammad Shafi thereupon filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which, as mentioned above, has been allowed. The Deputy Director has by his order held that the revenue entry showed that the partition of 1887 had not been acted upon and that entries of possession in favour of the Petitioner's father and thereafter of the Petitioner from 1362 Fasli to 1372 Fasli could not be relied upon. The reason given by him for not relying on these entries was that prior to 1362 Fasli the land had not been recorded in the name of the Petitioner's father and that when the entries of 1362 to 1372 Fasli were made the lekhpal did not indicate the date and the diary number when the entries were made and, as such, the entries were of no value as it was no compliance with the provisions of paragraph A -102 -C of the Land Records Manual. The Deputy Director also noted that plots Nos. 490 and 491 were entered in the name of the Petitioner's father in 1334F., which was the Settlement Year; but has made no further reference to this fact in his judgment.;