SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.6.1996 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') in Revision No. 679/151 registered under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953').
(3.) The dispute between the parties in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Plot No. 103 (area o.28 acres) in Khata No. 79. In the basic year records, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were recorded as co- tenure holders of the disputed plots. Respondent No. 3 filed objections under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 claiming himself to be the sole tenure holder of the disputed plot. The petitioner also filed her objections claiming that she had 3/4 share in the disputed plot on the basis of sale-deed executed by respondent No. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 7.2.1981 rejected the objections filed by respondent No. 3, but partly allowed the objections of the petitioner holding that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had 1/2 share each in the disputed plots. The order dated 7.2.1981 was challenged by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 in appeals filed under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'). The S.O.C. vide his order dated 7.1.1982 dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No. 3, but allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and held that she had 3/4 share in the disputed plot while respondent No. 3 had 1/4 share in the disputed plot. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.1.1982 passed by the S.O.C., respondent No. 3 filed Revision No. 679/151, which has been allowed by the D.D.C. and in his order the D.D.C. has held that the petitioner had 1/4 share in the disputed plot, while respondent No. 3 had 3/4 share in the same. The order dated 29.6.1996 passed by the D.D.C. has been challenged in the present writ petition.;