SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for heirs of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as well as learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
(2.) Petitioners are the son of Rajjak. Rajjak and respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were the son of Fazal. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Khata No. 214 (hereinafter referred to as 'disputed plots'). In the Revenue Records relating to 1348 Fasli one Mohd. Ishhaq and Rajjak were recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots. It is evident from record that Rajjak was recorded as a tenant of the disputed plots. After the death of Rajjak, petitioners were recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots and continued as such in the Revenue Records of the Basic year. During the consolidation operations held in the Village, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') praying to be recorded as co-tenure holders of the disputed plots inter alia claiming that the plots in the disputed khata were acquired by Fazal, and therefore, after the death of Fazal, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were co-tenure holders of the same with Rajjak and name of Rajjak continued in the Revenue Records only in representative capacity as he was the eldest son of Fazal. On the aforesaid objections of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 Case No. 648/490 was registered in the Court of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). The 2 C.O. vide his order dated 18.5.1985 allowed the said objections against which petitioners filed Appeal before respondent No. 2- Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'), which was numbered as Appeal No. 77/118/202. The S.O.C. vide his order dated 8.4.1993 allowed the said appeal setting aside the order dated 18.5.1985 passed by the C.O. and remanded back the matter to the C.O. for a fresh decision according to the guidelines recorded in his judgement. Against the judgement and order dated 8.4.1993, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed Revision before respondent No. 1-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'), which was registered as Revision No. 3415/737. The aforesaid revision was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his order dated 16.8.1996. Consequently, proceedings before the C.O. revived and the C.O. vide his judgement and order dated 16.1.1999 dismissed the objections filed by respondent No. 5 to 7. Against the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the C.O., respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed Appeal before the S.O.C., which was registered as Appeal No. 1839/1999. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by the S.O.C. vide his order dated 16.12.1999 whereby the S.O.C. set aside the order dated 16.1.1999 passed by the C.O. and allowed the objections filed by respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Against the aforesaid order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the S.O.C., petitioners filed Revision before the D.D.C., which was registered as Revision No. 1518 and the same was dismissed by the D.D.C. vide his judgement and order dated 27.5.2003. The reasons given by S.O.C. and D.D.C. were that from the evidence available on record, it was evident that disputed plots were purchased by Fazal and Rajjak was recorded in the Revenue Records only in representative capacity as he was the eldest son of Fazal. The judgements and orders dated 27.5.2003 and 16.12.1999 passed by the D.D.C. and S.O.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners and respondents are Muslims by religion, and therefore, there can be no presumption of a joint family between Rajjak and respondent Nos. 5 to 7, and therefore, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were not entitled to be recorded as cotenure holders of the disputed plots. Counsel for the petitioners has further argued that from the evidence on record, it was evident that the disputed plots were acquired by Rajjak and were not acquired by Fazal and the C.O., after considering the evidence, recorded a finding in favour of the petitioners, which was according to law and the S.O.C. has set aside the order passed by the C.O. without considering the relevant evidence available on record and without reversing the findings recorded by the C.O. Counsel for the petitioners also argued that orders passed by the D.D.C and S.O.C. are non-speaking orders as the findings recorded by them in their impugned orders are not supported by sufficient reasons, and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the D.D.C. as well as S.O.C. are contrary to law and liable to be set aside.;