Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—

Heard Sri R.K.Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Trivedi who is for the contesting respondent no.2.

2. This matter is being disposed of finally at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and learned standing counsel as well as the learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 4,5,6 and 9. The other respondents need not be heard at this stage inasmuch as the short issue involved in this petition is about a 26 year time barred objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P.c.H.Act, 1953 filed by the respondent no.2 Rafiqan represented by Sri Trivedi.

3. The short facts given rise to this writ petition are that the respondent no.2 was not even recorded in the basic year when the consolidation operations commenced. It was the name of the petitioner that was recorded in the basic year record and was ultimately maintained as such in his favour. However, before the village could be denotified under Section 52 of the U.P.C.H.Act,1953 the respondent no.2 filed an objection under Section 9-A-2 alleging that the name of her father Rakha ought to be recorded as per the pedigree admitted to her and ind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document