ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.)Heard Shri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Tripathi, Advocate assisted by Shri Saroj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.)The writ petition arises out of several objections under Section 9A2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by the parties pertaining to the land of khata nos. 174 and 77 in dispute situated in village Birbhanpur and is directed against the appellate and revisional orders dated 02.01.1992 and 24.05.2007. By the appellate order the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner has been set aside and the consequential revision has been dismissed affirming the appellate order. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.)Although the Consolidation Officer decided several objections, the controversy in so far as the instant writ petition is concerned is confined to only two aspects. One, whether Bhajani Lal, recorded in the basic year is the son of Sarjoo or the son of Ram Dular. The other issue is whether Magani Lal is alive or dead. The case of the petitioner is that Bhajni Lal, recorded in the basic year record, was in fact Magni Lal his brother who is since, dead. In the basic year record Bhajani Lal son of Sarjoo, Ram Dular son of Matabadal, Ram Kishor son of Sarjoo and Hiralal son of Bihari were recorded over the land in dispute.