Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K.S. Paliwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Sri Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of proposed respondents, who have now been impleaded as respondent Nos. 9 to 12. Learned Standing Counsel represents respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has sought to assail the order passed on 24.1.2004, by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghaziabad, dismissing the revision, appellate order dated 28.4.2003, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Ghaziabad and the order dated 14.11.2002, passed by the Consolidation Officer.

3. It is relevant to mention here that all the three Consolidation Courts, that is, the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded concurrent findings of fact in arriving at same conclusions that the agricultural land in dispute was acquired by a joint Hindu Family or a joint family of agriculturists for the purposes of the said family. The contesting parties were admittedly members of the same family (Khandan) and were living together in the same house. The admitted pedigree was also taken into account. The concurrent findings recorded by all the three Consolidation Courts have been challenged by this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. For convenience, the admitted pedigree of the contesting parties is being quoted below :

Hargopal

Mangat Kishan Sahay

Jagpal

Rampat Bhauti

(Now represented

by Lrs)

Rajendra Gyandendra

Jainendra Virendra Devendra

Rampat Dharam Singh (DhoomSingh)

(Now represented (Petitioner herein)

by L.Rs. ) Two Sons

Pradeep Kumar

and Anil Kumar

5. The dispute arose between the parties at the time of consolidation proceedings in respect of Khata No. 80 of Village Harampur, Pargana and Loni, Tehsil and District Ghaziabad. In the revenue/Khatauni entries, the names of Ram Singh and Dharam Singh, Sons of Bhauti and Rampat, Sons of Kishanlal Sahai were recorded. Objections were filed by Rajendra Singh, Jagendra Singh, Gyanendra Singh, Virendra Singh and Devendra claiming that they have 1/2 share in the said land. It was pleaded before the Consolidation Officer that it was a joint family’s agricultural land. The land was jointly acquired by the grand parents of the contesting parties. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were left to be recorded at some time due to some mistake. They claimed that their names be recorded as cotenureholders having 1/2 share in the agricultural land. Ram Singh etc. had opposed the claim by taking the ground that the agricultural land was, in fact, acquired by Kishan Sahai, Rampat and Bhauti, who were granted Patta by the erstwhile Zamindars as Asamis. It was never a joint family property.

6. Following issues were framed for the purposes of resolving the dispute :

(1) Kya Vadigan Evam Prativadigan Ek Hi Family Se Sambandhit Hain?

(2) Kya Vivadit Bhoomi Pakshon Ki Dada Ilahi Sampati Hai, Yadi Haan Ton Prabhav?

(3) Kya Vivadit Bhoomi Mein Apattikartagan Sahkhatedar Hain, Yadi Haan Ton Prabhav?

(4) Vivadit Bhoomi Mein Pakshon Ke Ansh Kya Hain?

7. On being afforded opportunity to adduce evidence, the respondents produced Parivar Register on 28.8.2002 and oral witnesses were also produced. The petitioners’ side also produced their witnesses.

8. All the three Consolidation Courts, that is, the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, on the basis of evidence adduced, pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, have recorded concurrent findings of fact that there existed a joint family, whose head was one Hargopal and after his death, one Branch was of Mangat and Jagpal and other Branch was of Kishan Sahai, who had two sons Rampat an