Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri A. P. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, counsel for respondent-2.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.7.2013, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to the land of basic consolidation year khatas 38 and 127 of village Jakhniya, khatas 42 and 154 of village Sirsiya, khatas 36 and 165 of village Mishrauli and khata 269 of village Malahiya, pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, district Kushinagar. In basic consolidation records, the name of Ram Pyare Lal was alone recorded, over the aforesaid khatas, except khata 36 of village Jakhniya, which was jointly recorded in the names of Ram Pyare Lal, Indrajeet, Thakur Lal and Mohan Lal. Indrajeet and Mohan Lal filed an objection, under Section 9 of the Act, claiming themselves to be the co-tenants, having 1/3 share each, in the khatas in dispute. It has been stated by them that the disputed land were acquired by their father, in the name of Ram Pyare Lal with their own income or from joint family fund, time to time. Both the parties remained in joint possession over the disputed land through out. It was partitioned by the award of Panches dated 26.7.1962 but it could not be given effect to in the revenue records and the name of Ram Pyare Lal continued, over the land which were acquired in his name by their father. Ram Pyare Lal (now represented by the petitioner and respondents-3 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed another objection under Section 9 of the Act, for deleting the names of Indrajeet, Thakur Lal and Mohan Lal from khata 36 of village Jakhniya and recording his name exclusively over it. It has been stated by the petitioner that entire land in dispute were self acquisition of Ram Pyare Lal, from his own income and not by their father. Entire joint family properties were partitioned during the life time of the father, who died in the year 1948. The respondent never raised any dispute in respect of the land in dispute although two settlements of revenue records took place after partition. The petitioner is in exclusive possession over the land in dispute since the date of its acquisition. Both the objections were registered as Case No. 39, under Section 9-A (2) of the Act and tried by the Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Padrauna, Deoria.

4. Before the Consolidation Officer, the parties filed mass of documentary evidence, to prove their cases. On behalf of the petitioner, Ram Pyare Lal was examined and on behalf of Indrajeet and Mohan Lal (now represented by respondent-2) (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) Mohan Lal and Vindhyanchal were examined as the witnesses. The Consolidation Officer, by his judgment dated 15.4.1986 found that serving of Dukhan Lal (father of the parties) as Patwari up to the year 1926 and Ram Pyare Lal being elder son of Dukhan Lal was admitted to the parties; The respondent could not prove that Ram Pyare Lal was born in the year 1906; For the reasons that in various plaints of the suits filed by the parties time to time, the name of Ram Pyare Lal was mentioned at serial No. 1, it was not proved that family was joint and Ram Pyare Lal was ‘karta’ of the joint family at the time when these suits were filed; Tenancy could be acquired separately by the member of the family and no presumption can be raised of it being acquired by joint family; the respondent could not file any evidence, in respect of their cultivation, payment of the land revenue by them or any other evidence to prove their possession; The Panch Award dated 26.7.1962 was not proved by the witnesses of the award nor it has ever been acted upon in the revenue records; The respondent could not prove that the alleged application dated 8.7.1975 was filed by Ram Pyare Lal; Although partition of joint family property took place 70 years ago and two sett