IMPORTANT POINT
Unless a person was found to be in possession merely because his name was recorded in the revenue record for a long period would not confer any right upon him.

Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 14.1.1976 and 29.1.1977 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.

2. At the start of Consolidation proceedings the dispute between the parties was with regard to khata Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 84, 86 and 90. One Smt. Phulpatia filed an objection in respect of khatas claiming to be the daughter and heir of Mst. Sukhia. Another objection was filed by respondent No. 3 Shyam Narain on behalf of his minor son Lallan alias Lal Bahadur in respect of aforesaid khatas claiming rights as son and sole heir of Mst. Sukhia. The petitioners also filed three objections on the ground that Bipat, husband of Smt. Sukhia belonged to their family. After death of Bipat Mst. Sukhia remarried with respondent No. 3, Shyam Narain and as such ceased to have any interest in the khatas. Her name was wrongly recorded in the revenue records and was liable to be expunged and the petitioners are entitled to have shares according to their pedigree.

3. All the objections were consolidated and decided by the Consolidation Officer by a common judgment dated 6.12.1973.

4. The objections filed by Smt. Phulpatia and Lallan alias Lal Bahadur minor were rejected and the petitioners and respondents second set were held to be co-sharer. Since khata Nos. 4 and 5 were in the nature of grove as such the same were not partitioned. In the remaining 5 khatas they were allotted share according to the pedigree. The objections of Lallan alias Lal Bahadur and Smt. Phulpatia both claiming as heirs of Mst. Sukhia was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground vide order dated 21.9.1973 their claim as heir of Mst. Sukhia with regard to property situate in village Newada was already rejected and the same operated as res judicata.

5. Lallan alias Lal Bahadur did not file any appeal. Mst. Phulpatia filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation. Another appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 Shyam Narain only with respect of khata No. 86 on the ground that since his name was recorded along with Mst. Sukhia who has died heirless as such he is entitled to succeed being a co-tenure holder in accordance with provision of Section 175 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act.

6. The appeal filed by Mst. Phulpatia was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In so far as appeal filed by respondent No. 3 Shyam Narain is concerned the same was allowed on the ground that since his name is recorded over the khata No. 86 along with Mst. Sukhia who has died heirless as such he is entitled to succeed her as a co tenant under Section 175 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act.

7. Mst. Phulpatia did not file any revision and the appellate order against her became final. The petitioners filed a revision challenging the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation allowing the appeal of respondent No. 3 with regard to khata No. 86 which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order. Thus the dispute in the present writ petition is confined only with regard to khata No. 86.

8. The Consolidation Officer while allowing the objection of the petitioners held that the name of Shyam Narain respondent No. 3 came to be recorded over the khata No. 86 along with Mst. Sukhia without any order of a competent authority. In appeal the Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded a finding that in the basic year the name of Shyam Narain was recorded over the khata in dispute along with Mst. Sukhia and it appears that he was accepted as co-tenant by Mst. Sukhia. On the basis of said finding he allowed the claim of respondent No. 3 as a co-tenant entitled to inherit the khata in dispute under Section 175 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. The same findings were confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

9. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petit