S.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereunder allowing the revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the contesting respondent and upholding the claim of the objectors in respect of the agricultural holdings pertaining to Khata No. 31, the name of the petitioners were directed to be expunged from the basic year khatauni determining the shares of Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar Lo be one half share each, they have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order.
(2.) 1 have heard Shri N. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shrl G. N. Verma, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents and have carefully perused the record.
(3.) The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. In the basic year Khatauni, the plots in dispute were recorded in the names of Deo Narain. Raj Karan S/o Ram Pal. Satya Narain and Ashok Kumar. An objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar S/o Raj Karan raising a dispute that the entry of the names of Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain in the basic year Khatauni showing them to be co-tenure holders was incorrect asserting that the plots in dispute exclusively belonged to these objectors having equal shares therein praying that the names of Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain be expunged. This objection was contested by Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain claiming that they had half share in the plots in dispute and the basic year entry so far as it disclosed their names as co-tenure holders was not liable to be disturbed, asserting further that Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar were entitled to only 1/4 share each in the land in dispute.;