Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Umanath Pandey for the petitioner and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, for the respondents.

2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Mukhya Rajasva Adhikari /Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 29.12.2004, passed in Revision Nos. 33/1812 of 2004-05, 103/1813 of 2004-05 and 104/2640 of 2004-05, arising out of title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to the land recorded in khatas 96 [consisting of plots 231, 684/14, 700/9, 731 and 878 (total area 2-0-15 bigha)] and 97 [consisting plots 220, 221/1, 270/1, 277, 280, 818, 830, 846, 915, 916, 917, 948, 952, 959, 988, 995 and 1010 (total area 5-12-17 bigha)] of village Sonebarsa, tappa Ramgarh, pargana Amorha, district Basti. In basic consolidation record, khata 96 was recorded in the names of Ram Nagar, Ram Soch and Ram Yagya sons Dhodhai (now represented by respondents-2 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) and Khata 97 was recorded in the names of Ram Nagar, Ram Soch and Ram Yagya sons Dhodhai and Ramdhan son of Bajadi. Govardhan son of Umrao (now represented by the petitioner) filed separate objections (registered as Case Nos. 195 and 196) under Section 9-A of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of ½ share, in the land in dispute. It has been stated by Govardhan that the land in dispute was khudkast of Bajadi and Dhodhai, who were real brothers and had equal share in it and was recorded in patti 11 of the khewat. Bajadi sold his ½ share in the land in dispute to Umrao through sale-deed dated 11.6.1923 (registered on 8.8.1923) and gave possession over his share to Umrao. Umrao had become co-khudkast holder of the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed and his name was mutated in the khewat, 1332 F. However, due to inadvertence, the name of Umrao was not mutated in the khatauni. The land in dispute has been through out in joint possession of both the parties. After date of vesting, he had become bhumidhar of the land in dispute to the extent of his ½ share.

4. The respondents contested the objections and filed their joint written statements. It has been stated by the respondents that Dhodhai (their father) was sole khudkast holder of the land of khata 96 and 97. The land of khata 96 was through out recorded in his name alone and Bajadi had no share in it, however in the land of khata 97, the name of Ramdhan has been wrongly recorded. After death of Dhodhai, the names of the respondents were recorded over it and they were in exclusive possession over it. After date of vesting the respondents alone became bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Krishna Kumar (respondent-2) filed a separate objection stating therein that Ramdhan has executed a sale-deed dated 20.2.1981 in his favour in respect of the land of his share in khata 97 as such his name be recorded on the basis of the sale-deed dated 20.2.1981. Govardhan filed a written statement to the objection of Krishna Kumar in which he has stated that Ramdhan was absconding for more than 30 years and the sale-deed dated 20.2.1981 was executed by some imposter. In any case, Ramdhan had no right in the land in dispute as his father had already transferred it to Umrao, as such on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Ramdhan no right can be claimed by Krishna Kumar.

5. These cases were consolidated and tried together by the Consolidation Officer (Final Record), Harraiya, Basti. On behalf of the petitioners apart from documentary evidence, statement of Raj Bahadur was recorded. On behalf of the respondents apart from documentary evidence statements of Ram Soch and Krishna Kumar were recorded. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 28.4.1987, held that Bajadi executed a sale-deed dated 11.6.1923 (registered on 8.8.1923) in favour of Umrao in respect of his share in the land in dispute and gave possession over