Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11th June, 1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 1734, Vishwanath and others v. Vishwanath, whereby he has set aside the order of the First Appellate Court, namely, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 7th November, 1975 and restored the order dated 21st February, 1974 that of Consolidation Officer, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The dispute relates to two Khata Nos. 10 and 11 situate in village Pura Raiji, Pargana Sultanpur, District Varanasi. In the basic year khata No. 11 was recorded in the names of Badri and Thakur Prasad as bhumidhars. Khata No. 10 was recorded in the names of Shyam Narain, Purshottam and Badri. The petitioner, namely, Vishwanath S/o Ram Sumer claimed 1/4 share in the aforesaid two khatas through his objection filed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that khatas in dispute are ancestral and his name is wrongly not recorded over them. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed two sets of written statement, contesting the claim of the petitioner. They are purchasers by means of four sale-deeds dated 27th July, 1958 in respect of khata No. 11 and 17th October, 1959, 3rd June, 1957 and 30th March, 1955 in respect of khata No. 10 from the then recorded tenure holders. It was contended by them that they are bona fide purchasers for value without notice. Their names were mutated after sale-deeds but the petitioner did not raise any objection then and there. They are in occupation of the disputed land in pursuance of the aforesaid sale-deeds and even otherwise have perfected their title by remaining in possession since the date of sale. In the another set of written statement, it was pleaded that there was a partition in the family long ago and in the said partition the petitioner’s branch was given land of village Paharpur and the disputed lands were allotted to the branch of the present recorded tenure holders/respondents.

3. The parties led their evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases.

4. Consolidation Officer found that the petitioner could not dare to come in the witness-box to deny the theory of partition. He could examined his son Virendra Pratap, who was aged 27 years and had no knowledge about partition. It was found that the sale-deed dated 27th July, 1958 in respect of khata No. 11, no objection was preferred by the petitioner in mutation proceedings. The possession of vendee was also found in view of various irrigation slips and other documents produced by him. Similarly, in respect of khata No. 10, possession of Ram Karan, the purchaser was found who purchased the land by means of three sale-deeds dated 30th March, 1955, 3rd June, 1957 and 17th October, 1959. The petitioner/objector could not produce any evidence to prove that he is in possession over the disputed lands. It was also noticed that since the agricultural year 1334F (which corresponds to year 1927), the name of Ram Sumer (father of the petitioner) is not recorded in the revenue record. Consequently, he dismissed the objection of the petitioner and maintained the basic year entries by the order dated 21st February, 1974. The matter was carried in Appeal No. 909 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the S.O.C.), which was allowed by the order dated 7th November, 1975. The S.O.C. found that the land in dispute is ancestral property and name of Ram Sumer, father of the petitioner was found recorded in 1307F (which corresponds to year 1900). He has also noticed that there has been a partition in the family but found that the theory that the entire land at Paharpur was given to the petitioner’s branch appears to be wrong. He ordered for separation/partition of 1/8 share of the present petitioner. The matter was carried further in revision by Vishwanath (he is another person being son of