The ex parte judgement and decree must be a valid decree in the eye of law to bind the consolidation courts, and documents more than 20 years old, which are the basis of a claim, require formal proof.

This writ petition, which arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short, the Act), seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the judgement and order dated 20.6.2006 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (for short, DDC).

2. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to khata no. 11 of village Gangasagar, pargana Birhar, tehsil Alapur, district Ambedkar Nagar, which was recorded in the name of Man Bahal, father of respondent nos. 1 to 4, Rampati and Jagannath, sons of Ram Bharose, in the basic year.

3. The following pedigree is admitted between the parties:

Thakurdeen

Dwarika Bhullan

Manbahal

Badri

Ram Swaroop

(DIL)

=widow

Janardan

= widow

Smt. Mona

2.Ghanshayam

Raghuvanshi (DIL)

(DIL)

Jagdish

2. Devi Prasad

3. Hausila

4. Onkar Nath

4. Dwarika, father of the petitioners, filed an objection under section 9A(2) of the Act, claiming co-tenancy to the extent of ½ in the khata in dispute. It was the claim of the objector that Badri, Ram Swaroop and Bhullan, the three sons of Thakurdeen, who are also the real brothers of the objector, had executed a will in his favour in 1924. Thakurdeen had mortgaged the property in dispute, which mortgage was redeemed by the objector alone and, therefore, he became its owner. It was also pleaded that Badri, Ram swaroop and Bhullan died issueless; their widows also died; therefore, their shares would devolve upon the objector and his brother Man Bahal, hence the claim for co-tenancy to the extent of ½ in the disputed khata.

5. The objection was contested by Man Bahal, father of the contesting respondent, on the ground that registered gift-deeds dated 22.3.1960 and 23.3.1960 were executed in his favour by Ram Swaroop and Smt. Raghuvamshi, widow of Badri and Smt. Mona, widow of Bhullan. It was further alleged that on the basis of the said registered gift-deeds he filed a suit under section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short, the UP ZA & LR Act) which was decreed on 30.6.1967, whereafter he was mutated over the land in dispute.

6. In replication, the petitioner's father denied the gift-deeds and further stated that the decree in the suit under section 229B was fraudulent and collusive and, therefore, void.

7. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 25.8.1989 rejected the objection. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Dwarika and Man Bahal died and were duly substituted by their heirs. As already noted above, the petitioners are the sons of Dwarika, the objector, and the contesting respondent nos. 1 to 4, are sons of Man Bahal, the opposite party before the Consolidation Officer.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SOC, who by order dated 22.11.2003 allowed the appeal. Consequently, revision was filed by the contesting respondent, which was allowed by the DDC on 20.6.2006 . The DDC set aside the order of the SOC and dismissed the objection.The petitioners, therefore, have filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the DDC.

9. I have heard Sri I.D. Shukla, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri U.P.S. Kushwaha, who represents contesting respondent nos. 1 to 4.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the pedigree is admitted between the parties. The decree of the revenue court in the suit under section 229B of the UP ZA & LR Act, which has been relied upon to non-suit the petitioners, is null and void and the same could and should have been ignored by opposite party no. 1 and the shares of the parties determined as per the admitted pedigree. He has further contended that the judgement of the suit under section 229B was not a judgement in the eyes of law, as it was not supported by reasons and did not discuss the evidence of the parties. It involved no judicial determination and was a judgement passed without any d