S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ram, learned advocate who appeared in support of this petition and Sri Agnihoti, learned advocate who appeared for respondents.
(2.) As there appears to be no much dispute about certain facts and therefore, on brief summary, writ petition can be conveniently disposed of.
(3.) This writ petition arises out or proceeding under section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act which relates to adjudication of dispute of title/share between the parties. In the basic year record, name of respondent was recorded, upon which petitioners side filed objection claiming co-tenancy right in the land in dispute. Initially, Khata No. 2 and 176 were not in dispute but during course of argument Sri Ram submits that there is no dispute about Khata No. 2 and as that has been negatived by all the Courts, petitioner is not laving any claim. The dispute is confined only in respect to the land/plots as comprised in Khata No. 176. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation rejected petitioners claim of co-tenancy but the Deputy Director, Consolidation by its judgment dated 6.2.1973 partly allowed, petitioners claim and gave him co-tenancy right in plot Nos. 99 and 187 but in respect to remaining plots, the claim of petitioner has been rejected and thus, this writ petition.;