Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh, for the petitioners and Ms. Savita Jain, for the contesting respondents-4 to 6.

2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 10.6.1979 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.1980 and for modifying the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.3.1980 to the extent that Hausila (petitioner-3) had also share in disputed land according to the pedigree, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3. The dispute relates to land of khata 153 of village Ishakpur, pargana Barausa, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in basic consolidation year in the names of Chhote Lal son of Ram Kishor, Ram Jag and Daya Ram sons of Bhagwat (respondents-4 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), Ram Naresh son of Devata, Ram Pratap son of Bhawani Bux, Hausila son of Ram Dular (the petitioners) as sirdar. The respondents filed an objection (registered as case No. 3307) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of the petitioners from khata in dispute. The respondents took plea that the land in dispute was self acquired tenancy holding of Bhagwat. Other members of the pedigree had no share in it. After date of vesting, Bhagwat became sirdar of it. The petitioners contested the case on the ground that land in dispute was jointly acquired by joint family of two brothers of Devata and Mukhai. According to pedigree Ram Pratap has 1/2 share, Ram Naresh and Hausila together had 1/4 share jointly and the respondents together had 1/4 share jointly.

4. Before Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed khatauni 1343 F and examined Ram Pratap, Ram Naresh and Hausila as witnesses. The respondents filed khatauni 1356 F, extract of TO register showing that Zamindar Vishwanath Singh filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941, CH Form-7 and CH Form-17 of previous consolidation, showing that on the basis of CH Form-7, the names of the petitioners were recorded over khata in dispute, in previous consolidation, for the first time and previous consolidation was canceled by notification under Section 6 of the Act and examined Ram Jag as witness. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 6.10.1979, held that Ram Pratap, aged about 59 years, stated that partition in family had taken place 10-12 years ago, while Ram Naresh aged about 85 years stated that Devata and Mukhai were living separately during their life time and Mukhai died about 100 years ago. Thus partition between Devata and Mukhai had taken place more than 100 years ago. Name of Devata alone was recorded with period of cultivation of 14 years, in khatauni 1343 F, which shows that land was acquired by Devata in the year 1922-23. At that time Mukhai was living separate. As such Ram Pratap had no share in it. Issue as to whether name of Bhagwat was recorded over the land in dispute by inheritance arises? Name of Bhagwat was recorded in 1356 F, as hereditary tenant with 7 years period of cultivation. From statement of Ram Naresh, it was proved that at that time Devata was alive as such the name of Bhagwat was not recorded by way of inheritance. The respondents filed extract of TO Register from which it was proved that then Zamindar, Vishwanath Singh had filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941. Although details of land in dispute are not mentioned in it but there is no evidence that apart from land in dispute there was any other land in the name of Devata and same property came to be recorded in the name of Bhagwat in 1356 F as such it was proved that Devata was ejected from the land in dispute in the year 1941 and fresh settlement was made by Zamindar of the land in dispute in favour of Bhagwat in 1949, as self a