Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 26-12-2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad in Reference No. 48, State v. Bachni and others, under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation accepted the reference.
(2.) The dispute relates to the Khata No.229 which originally consisted of three plots, namely, 624, 733/309 and 682. Plot No. 682 is not in controversy in the present case. The dispute relates to other two plots only, namely, 624 and 733/309. While deciding the objections under Section 9A(2) of the Act filed by Ramdhan (petitioner), the Consolidation Officer held that the share of Ramdhan (petitioner) was 1/2, the share of Lalji was 1/4 and share of Banshi Lal (respondent no.2) was also 1/4. The Consolidation Officer further recorded that Lalji had executed a valid sale-deed with regard to his entire share in favour of Banshi Lal ( respondent no.2). According to the Consolidation Officer, both the petitioner and respondent no.2 became co-sharers of equal areas. The Consolidation Officer further recorded that even though the actual area on record of plot no. 624 was 14405 sq. mts. but on the spot it was found that the actual land available was 13421 sq. mts.. It, accordingly, held that both the petitioner and respondent no.2 were entitled to 6710 sq. mts. each. Further as Banshi Lal had a separate Khata, being Khata no. 124, in which 3101 sq. mts. of plot no. 624 was recorded as sub-plot no. 624/2, therefore, the respondent no.2 would get 3410 sq. mts. from the remaining area of plot no. 624 recorded in Khata no. 229 and the petitioner would get 6710 sq. mts. of the said plot being its remaining area equivalent to 1/2 of the total area.
(3.) Similarly with regard to the plot no. 733/309 the Consolidation Officer found that on the spot the area available was 1192 sq. mts. out of which 296 sq. mts. was recorded in Khata no. 124 being exclusive Khata of Banshi Lal and therefore, after adjusting the said area from Khata no. 229, the petitioner would get 592 sq. mts and the respondent no. 2 will get 292 sq. mts.;