Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nipun Singh learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

2. By means of present writ petition under Secton 226 of the Constitution of India the orders dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and 21.5.2009 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar respondent No. 2 and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnager, respondent No. 1 respectively are sought to be quashed.

3. The dispute in the present writ petition primarily relates to plot No. 694/1 of Khata No. 211 measuring 2 bigha 17 biswa (herein after referred to as the disputed plots). The factual position is that late Mukunda father of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 was recorded as chief tenant and the names of Chhajju father of the petitioner and Jittu son of Pirwa respondent No. 8 were recorded in clause-IX in the basic year. Since Mukanda died leaving behind Ram Kumar, Deshraj and Charan Singh (minor) as his heirs and legal representatives, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 (herein after referred to as the contesting respondents), after the extracts from the record we