- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 30. 7. 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the opposite parties 1 to 4 have been given co-tenancy rights and the petitioners were deprived of their half share over the land in dispute. The controversy in the instant writ petition has given rise on account of the notification of the village in question under the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act and the dispute though was in respect of Gata Nos. 104, 106, 107 and 112, but in the proceedings before the Revisonal Authority, the dispute was confined to Gata No. 107 only. Brief facts of the case are that Gata No. 104 was recorded in the name of Guman (opposite party No. 1 ). In the consolidation proceedings, the names of. Phunnu and Ram Sunder, being real brothers of Guman and Jia Lal, cousin were proposed to be added. As no objections were raised, their names were recorded.
(3.) AS regardskhata No. 106, the name of Guman (opposite party No. 1), Ram Sunder and Punnu were recorded in the basic year. Subsequently, on an application moved by Jia Lal, co-tenancy right over the property was claimed. The same was recorded as no one has filed the objections. With regard to Khata No. 107, the same was recorded in the basic year in the name of Jia Lal and during consolidation proceedings, the names of Guman, Ram Sunder, Phunnu and Ram Chet (petitioner) were proposed to be added. Phunnu, Ram Sunder and Guman filed written objections stating therein that the property is out of the funds of Joint Hindu Family nucleus so the names be recorded with Jia Lal and their shares may be divided accordingly, i. e. half share each may be partitioned.;