S.D.Khare, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P., Lucknow, (opposite party no. 2) on February 20, 1964.
(2.) The undisputed facts leading to this petition might be briefly stated as follows. The dispute relates to a Khata in village Jagdishpur, district Ballia. In the basic year the land in question was recorded as the bhumidhari holding of Mathura and Sm, Manoria, widow of Deoraj. During the consolidation proceedings Bhagan, son of Mathura (deceased) raised an objection that the land in suit had been acquired by his ancestor alone and Sm. Manoria had no right of co-tenancy as the widow of Deoraj. It was further alleged that Sm. Manoria was not the wife of Deoraj. During the course of the mutation proceedings which were fought up to the Board of Revenue it was held that Sm. Manoria was the widow of Deoraj and her name was ordered to be recorded in the Khata. She had made a transfer of her interest in the bhumidhari Khata in favour of Ram Cheez and others and they had applied that their names be entered in the revenue records in place of that of Sm. Manoria. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated May 17, 1963 decided both the objections against the objectors. No mutation was ordered in favour of Ram Cheez and others on the technical ground that there was nothing on the record to show that this land purchased together with the land already with them will not exceed the maximum prescribed by Section 154 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Both the objectors, therefore, went up in appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation Ballia, who by his judgment dated August 28, 1963 decided both the matters in favour of Bhagan son of Mathura. He held that Deoraj was not a member of the family of Mathura and was, therefore, not entitled to co-tenancy in the property in dispute. The transfer in favour of Ram Cheez and others, therefore, became ineffective. He further ordered that the name of Sm. Manoria be expunged from the holding and the same shall continue to be the sole property of Bhagan and Shankar sons of Mathura.
(3.) Ram Cheez and others filed three revision applications against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not proceed to record a finding on the question whether or not Deoraj and Mathura had belonged to the same family lie, however, arrived at the finding that Deoraj and after his death Sm. Manoria had all along been recorded as co-tenure-holders along with Mathura and had also all along remained in possession. He further arrived at the finding that both Mathura and Sm. Manoria had become co-bhumidhars of the property. He accepted an affidavit filed on behalf of Ram Cheez on the point that the property purchased by him from Sm. Manoria when added to the property already in his possession will not contravene the provisions of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On these findings he allowed the revision application, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and directed that the names of Ram Cheez and others be recorded over the share of Sm. Manoria in the Khata in dispute. He thus upheld the co-tenancy right of Deoraj and Sm. Manoria over the Khata in dispute on the basis of their continuous possession.;