Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Khushali was the tenant. On his death Kushali left behind a widow Smt. Vijai Kaur and son Ram Chandra the 4th respondent. It appears that after Khushali's death Smt. Vijai Kaur remarried one Kalluwa. From their wedlock two sons viz., Ram Swarup and Dal Chand were born. Ram Swarup has since died and was substituted by his two sons viz., Mahendra and Tikam - the petitioners. A suit under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by Ram Chander for a declaration that he has sole tenancy rights over the land in dispute. The suit was decreed on 20.7.1999. Against the decree an appeal was preferred by the petitioners. During the pendency of the appeal, the village was notified under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the suit abated. In the basic year the names of Smt. Vijai Kaur and Ram Chandra were recorded. In the consolidation proceedings objections were filed by respondent no.4 for expunging the name of Smt. Vijai Kaur. The case of respondent no.4 Ram Chandra was that on the death of Kushali, he was a minor and that the name of Smt. Vijai Kaur his mother was recorded along with his name as she was his guardian. The objections were contested by the petitioners. Their case is that Smt. Vijai Kaur continued to be a tenant along with respondent no.4 and was paying rent in her own right to the Zamindar and her name was not recorded merely as a guardian of Ram Chandra. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of Ram Chandra on the basis of the judgement of the Assistant Collector dated 20.7.1989 in the suit under Section 229-B. The petitioners preferred an appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Against that order, a revision was filed by respondent no.4 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has held that on the death of Khushali, his son respondent no.4 succeeded to the property in dispute in view of the law of succession then in force and that the name of Smt. Vijai Kaur was entered merely as a guardian. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.S. Misra counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Kumar counsel for respondent no.4.
(3.) It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the courts below have not considered the material evidence on record - oral and documentary evidence including rent receipts filed by the petitioners. Copy of the statement of witnesses and copy of the rent receipts have been filed by the petitioners along with a supplementary affidavit. The rent receipts purport to be of the years 1936, 1937, 1938 and it is submitted that they were issued by the Zamindar and are evidence that rent was paid both by respondent no.4 and Smt. Vijai Kaur. It does appear from the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence including rent receipts has been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The question is one of fact. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the mater should be sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision.;