Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It relates to claims over Khata No. 27 and Khata No. 194 situate in village Vishunpur Kala, Pargana Mahaich, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi and its partition. It is directed against the orders dated 15.4.1975 in Case No. 6 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sakaldiha, the order dated 2.8.1975 in Appeal No. 166/561 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi West and the order dated 4.8.1976 in Revisions No. 606/1268 and 608/1272 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Varanasi.

2. The dispute is whether Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) was fraudulently and erroneously recorded over the khatas in question in the revenue record in the basic year alongwith the petitioners Telhu and Meghu. To such effect the Consolidation Officer framed an issue and the parties led their evidence.

3. The petitioner Telhu and Meghu gave their oral statement that the property came down from Rupa who had two sons Janki and Tulsi and Petitioner No. 1, Telhu was son of Janki and Meghu was son of Tulsi. According to them the Respondent No. 4 Rupwanti was not the wife of Tulsi hence she has no claim over the share of Tulsi.

4. The Respondent No. 4 Rupwanti gave the pedigree of Rupa and stated that he had two sons Janki and Tulsi. According to her Janki had two sons Telhu (Petitioner No. 1) and Meghu (Petitioner No. 2). She claimed to be wife of Tulsi and she was also known as Basanti.

5. Documentary evidence in the form of khatauni’s was filed by the parties. The Consolidation Officer went through the khatauni’s and recorded as under :

6. On the above oral and documentary evidence the Consolidation Officer held that Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) is the widow of Tulsi and Telhu (Petitioner No. 1) and Meghu (Petitioner No. 2) are sons of Janki hence the name of Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) has rightly been recorded in the revenue records. He held that in Khata No. 27 and Khata No. 194 Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) had half share and Telhu had one fourth share and Maghu had one fourth share. The objections filed by Bhutani wife of Telhu, Meghu and Telhu were rejected.

7. The Petitioner No. 2, Meghu filed Appeal No. 166/561 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has found that the objectors had not filed any kutumbh register, birth register, voters list or any panchayat documents to prove that Meghu is any where recorded as son of Tulsi. He has held that in khatauni of 1349F relating to Khata Nos. 16 and 59 Janki was recorded alongwith Tulsi and since Tulsi was alive and was issueless hence Meghu got his name entered as son of Tulsi. He found that the khatauni’s of 1348F, 1349F 1356F recorded Telhu son of Janki and Meghu son of Tulsi but these khata’s were not subject-matter of the proceedings however in Khata No. 128 in 1356F Janki is recorded as son of Rupa and Basanti is recorded as widow of Tulsi since admittedly Tulsi died on 21.5.1947.

8. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that the compromise entered into between Telhu and Meghu on the basis of a sale-deed dated 25.5.1949 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 24.11.1970 recording the name of Telhu and Meghu sons of Janki was an evidence that they were both sons of Janki and although it was alleged that there was dispute to the succession of Janki hence if Meghu was son of Tulsi then there should have been an objection by Telhu and no compromise would have been entered between them regarding succession to Janki. He has therefore held that the said order could not in any manner adversely affect the rights of Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4). The Settlement Officer Consolidation has also recorded that the oral evidence given by witness of Meghu namely Jhakari indicated that when Janki was 30-40 years old at that time Meghu was 18-20 years old and two sons were born