S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings.
(2.) THE dispute in the present case is in respect of plot No. 422 of Khata No. 105 and all the plots of Khata No. 91. One Fatta had three sons Maharam, Suggan and Udda. During consolidation proceedings in the basic year the disputed plots were entered in the name of Maharam as tenure holder . But at the time of Partal it was found that the other brothers Udda and Suggan were also in possession over the plots in dispute and their names were shown to be in possession. Maharam filed an objection on the allegation that Udda and Suggan had nothing to do with the plots in dispute and prayed for the removal of the entries of possession in their names. His case was that the plots in dispute had been settled with him when he was separated member from the other brothers as well as his father. This claim of Maharam was contested by Udda and Suggan who asserted that the tenancy had been acquired by the joint family consisting of the three brothers in the name of Maharam who was the eldest of them all and who acted as Karta of the family and that the entry of Maharam as a tenure holder was in representative capacity. In the alternative it was asserted that in any case they being in possession over the plots in dispute for more than the prescribed period they acquired sirdari right Under Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of Udda and Suggan and found that the plots in dispute had been acquired at a time when the family was joint and that the acquisition had been made by Maharam in representative capacity. In coming to this conclusion the Consolidation Officer took note of various aspects of the case. It was found that the acquisition had been made at a time when the family was joint raising the presumption of jointness in favour of real brothers. The Consolidation Officer also noted that possession of Udda and Suggan was proved by the extracts of Khasras of 1362 F. and 1369 F., rent receipts, irrigation slips and a number of pass books for the supply of the sugar canes from 1951 upto date. He also in the alternative held that in any case the opposite parties Udda and Suggan were entitled to get the benefit of Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. This decision of the Consolidation Officer was upheld in appeal by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In revision the Dy. Director of Consolidation confined his attention only to the question of settlement of tenancy with Maharam whether it was in individual capacity or in representative capacity. It appears that, casting the burden of proof on Udda and Suggan he held that these persons not having discharged the onus that lay on them Maharam should be held to have acquired the tenancy in his individual capacity. The Dy. Director did not refer to all the documentary evidence about possession which had been referred to by the Consolidation Officer nor did he give any categorical finding as to the factum of possession of the third and the fourth Respondents.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the decision of the Dy. Director of Consolidation Respondents Udda and Suggan filed a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that there existed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation inasmuch as he had not considered all the circumstances of the case and had made no comments on certain material evidence as such his order was illegal and suffered from mistake apparent on the face of the record. The learned Single Judge quashed the order and made comments on the question of law involved in the case.;