Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.1.1975 and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.1975.
(2.) There is no dispute that the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 are related to each other. The consolidation proceedings started in the village. Subedar Tiwari, the petitioner, filed an objection that he has ⅗ share in khata Nos. 190, 270 and 283 situated in village Lokwa, Pargana Mahaich, district Varanasi and in respect of plots of khata No. 284 and 92 of village Lokwa he claimed exclusive rights. The claim of the petitioner was based in respect of khata Nos. 190, 270 and 283 that there was a family settlement under which he was given ⅗ share and as regards khata No. 284 and 92 he based his claim that it exclusively belonged to him. Respondents 3 and 4 contested the case. They claimed that they have half share in respect of all these khatas.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer accepted the version of the petitioner. He held that petitioner has ⅗ share in khata Nos. 190, 270 and 283. In respect of plots of khata No. 284 and 92 it was held that the petitioner was exclusive tenure holder of the plots situated in these khatas. Respondents 3 and 4 filed appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 partly allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner failed to prove the partition as alleged by him in respect of the khatas in question which were situated in village Lokwa. He, however, maintained the order of the Consolidation Officer regarding khata No. 284 and 92, wherein it was held that the petitioner was exclusive tenure-holder. Against this order the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of khata Nos. 190, 270 and 283. Respondents 3 and 4 filed revision against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation in respect of khata No. 284 and 92. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 16.7.1975 dismissed the revision of the petitioner and allowed the revision filed by respondents 3 and 4.;