Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Bhudhar was the common ancestor of the parties. He had four sons-two of whom Samu and Barsati died issueless. The petitioners are descendants of Nandan, son of Bhudhar. The respondent No. 4 Durbal is the son of Sarju another son of Bhudhar. There were several plots in dispute recorded in the basic year in the name of Durbal. Nandan claimed co-tenancy rights on the basis that they were acquired by the joint family. The case of Durbal respondent No. 4 on the other hand is that plots exclusively recorded in the name of Sarju were his sole acquisition and Nandan's branch had no share therein. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 5.3.81 dismissed the claim of co tenancy made by the petitioners. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation affirmed the findings. The Dy. Director of Consolidation remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who dismissed the appeal. The revision filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation by his impugned order dated 2.5.2006.
(2.) I have heard Sri P.R. Maurya Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.C Tewari Counsel for respondent No. 4 Durbal.
(3.) Although at the stage of the Consolidation Officer there were several plots in dispute but at the time of arguments in the writ petition Counsel for the petitioners has confined his attack in respect of plot No. 248 of khata No. 194, plot No. 253 of Khata No. 432 and plot No. 193 of khata 626. The reasoning of the consolidation authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioners is that even in the life time of Bhudhar the parties were entered in respect of separate plots and had separate acquisitions.;