Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The dispute relates to Khata No. 456 situate in village Osa Pargana Karari Tahsil Manjhanpur District Allahabad. In the basic year khatauni the name of the petitioners were recorded over the said Khata. Respondents 3 and 4 filed objection stating that they are exclusive tenure holder of the plots situated in Khata No. 456 on the ground that the land belonged to their ancestor Deona and they have inherited this land from him. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the respondents by his order dated 21.7.1981. The petitioners filed appeal against said order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal on 18.4.1983. The respondents preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 allowed the revision on 5.3.1983 and upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer holding that the respondents are exclusive tenure holder of the plot situated in Khata No. 456.
(2.) I have heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
(3.) The sole question is as to whether the petitioners or contesting respondents are tenure holder of plots situated in Khata No. 456. The Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have held that there was extract of 1321 Fasli showing that Khata in question was in the name of Deona grand-father of respondents 3 and 4. Subsequently, the names of petitioners were recorded but according to respondent No. 1 the petitioners failed to prove as to how their names entered into in the revenue record. The petitioners are not entitled to get any right over the land in dispute. The petitioners had also taken an objection that a suit was filed in the year 1962 under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, by Ratan Das in respect of the aforesaid disputed property. The suit having been dismissed the order passed therein will operate as res-judicata. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 5.3.1984 took the view that filing of the suit was suspicious and in that situation it cannot be relied upon. Respondent No. 1 has not specifically recorded finding that the suit was not filed by the petitioner; or respondent No. 3 or their ancestors. Merely on the basis of suspicion it cannot be held that judgment passed in the suit will not be binding. It was necessary for respondent No. 1 to record specific finding as to whether the contesting respondents or their ancestors had filed the suit. Respondent No. 1 has further not recorded any finding as to who was in possession over the land in the dispute.;