Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to Khata No. 18. In the basic year this Khata is recorded in the name of Jagdish Prasad the petitioner. To bring out the facts clearly it is necessary to refer to the pedigree, which is admitted to the parties. Janki was the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons Sarju, Hub Lal and Kaluram. The petitioner Jagdish is son of Ram Dular son of Sarju. The respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shankar claiming cotenancy rights on the basis that the property in question was a joint acquisition of Sarju, Hub Lal and Kaluram and that they had a 1/3 share on the basis of the pedigree. Another objection was filed by Shambhu Prasad sin of Hub Lal claiming 1/3 share and a third objection was filed by Ganga Devi widow of Jamuna Prasad another son of Sarju. The objections were contested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the khata in dispute was acquired by his mother and it is not joint family property. Before the Consolidation Officer the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the contesting respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker and also those of Shambhu Prasad but allowed the objection of Ganga Devi widow of Jamuna Prasad. Appeals were filed by the petitioner and Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker . The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeals. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation revision was filed by the contesting respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed their revisions and has found that they are co-tenant to the extent of 1/3 share. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is challenged in this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uma Shanker, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker.
(3.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded the finding that the property in dispute belongs to the joint family. In recording the findings of cotenancy the Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the statement of Jag-dish Prasad the petitioner in the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Land Holdings Act wherein he admitted that Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker had 1/3 share. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also relied upon the entry of possession of respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker. The case of the respondent Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker is that the disputed lands were acquired when the family was joint and the entry of Jagdish Prasad was representative. Sri Chandan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the deposition of Komal Prasad, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure -7 in the writ petition in which Komal Prasad admitted that there had been ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... about 20 years back between Komal Prasads father, Jagdish Prasad and Shambhoo Prasad. He submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered this admission of Komal Prasad and that in view of this admission the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in granting co-tenancy rights to the contesting respondents Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker as there had been a partition. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the name of Ram Dular father of Jagdish was never shown to have been recorded over the disputed land. Shri Chandan Kumar also submitted that finding has been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation upon the petitioner's case that the plots of the khata were the acquisition of mother of Jagdish Prasad. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner's Counsel. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to go into these aspects in view of the fact that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation have recorded a finding that the case of acquisition by the joint family was not proved and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was reversing the finding by giving co-tenancy rights to Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker. The Consolidation Officer has also recorded a finding that the entry of possession of Komal Prasad and Uma Shanker in Varg 9 was not in accordance with law. As the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered material aspects of the case the matter has therefore to go back to the Deputy Director of consolidation for fresh decision. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.3.1980 is set aside. He is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, if possible within a period of six, months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. Petition Allowed.;