Rajan Roy, J. - (1.)Heard.
(2.)This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Consolidation Courts arising out of the proceedings under section 9 and thereafter in appeal and revision under section 11 and 48 of the Act 1953 respectively.
(3.)It is not in dispute that in the Basic Year Khatauni the Khata No.50 was recorded in the name of the petitioners and Danku who also belonged to the family, however, during preparation of verification Khatauni it was found that Danku had expired. It is from this stage that the dispute arose. While the petitioners claimed that Danku had died issueless, therefore, they were his legal heirs. One Kalawati @ Phoolan Devi filed an application claiming to be daughter of Danku and thus entitled to his share in the holding. It is in this background that proceedings under section 9 took place. The Consolidation Officer referred to the oral evidence led by both the parties, but did not discuss the same as, according to him, Kalawati had not filed any documentary evidence in support of her claim, whereas the petitioners herein had filed two documents, one was the death certificate issued by the Pradhan which also mentioned the legal heirs of the deceased and the other was a photocopy of the extract of the Family-Register which, according to the Consolidation Officer were clinching documentary evidence to tilt the balance in favour of the petitioners herein. He ordered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.