B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and other consolidation authorities.
(2.) The claim of the petitioner was that he was the sole tenant of 1 /2 share of the plots in khata Nos. 173 and 312. The petitioner alleged that even though respondent no. 4 was entered in revenue papers along with the petitioner, out the petitioner had ousted her and in any case the oral gift was executed in his favour, hence he became the sole tenure holder. The case of respondent no. 4, on the other hand, was that she was entitled to 1/2 share as the land in dispute was acquired by Yam in, and after the death of Yamin her brother Yusuf was entered over the share of Yamin and after the death of Yusuf, she was entered as daughter of Yamin and she was not ousted from the land in dispute.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the consolidation authorities committed error apparent on the face of record in rejecting the plea of ouster. Much reliance was placed on the statement of Shabbier, the petitioner to the effect that the respondent came to cultivate the land in dispute, but Shabbier did not permit him or her to enter the field (page 19 of the paper book). The next submission was that the oral evidence has not been considered.;