SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava III, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Balak was the common ancestor of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 (hereinafter referred to as, 'respondents'). Dular, Khargu and Harkhu were the sons of Balak. Petitioner is the descendant of Harkhu while the respondents are the descendants of Dular. In the basic year records, respondents were recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') claiming that he was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder of the disputed plots alongwith the respondents. It was alleged that the disputed plots were acquired by their common ancestor, Balak and there was no partition between the descendants of Balak. It appears that the claim of the petitioner was based on the revenue records of 1840 Fasli in which Balak was recorded as tenure holder of Plot Nos. 10, 11, 35 and 155. On the aforesaid objections of the petitioner, Case No. 3430 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.'). The respondents contested the objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that the disputed plots were not acquired by Balak but were acquired by Dular. The C.O. vide his judgement and order dated 7.8.1995 dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 which was numbered as Appeal No. 905 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.O.C.'). The S.O.C. vide his judgement and order dated 15.9.1995 allowed Appeal No. 905 filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which was numbered as Revision No. 36/77/307 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.'). The D.D.C. vide his judgement and order dated 30.6.1999 allowed the said revision and set aside the order dated 15.9.1995 passed by the S.O.C. The order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 36/77/307 has been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order dated 30.6.1999, the D.D.C. has not considered the revenue records of 1840 Fasli which showed that the petitioner and the respondents were descendants of a common ancestor and the disputed plots were acquired by Balak, the common ancestor. It was further argued that from the records it was evident that there was no partition between the descendants of Balak and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder of the disputed plots alongwith the respondents. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 30.6.1999 passed by the D.D.C. in Revision No. 36/77/307 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside.;