Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Petitioners, Bhagelu and Ganga Ram, both sons of Ram Swaroop (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by order dated 2.2.1974 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the “DDC”), whereby it has allowed Revision No. 469 of respondent No. 4 and dismissed Revision No. 451 filed by petitioners and held that except sale-deeds executed by petitioners, in remaining land, respondents No. 3 (Bhulai) and 4 (Ram Autar) each, shall have half share.

2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 19, Plots No. 11, 181, 208(M), 240, 243, 208/2, 206 and 240(M).

3. Petitioners claimed to be recorded Bhumidhar in basic year entry. Respondents 3 and 4 filed objection claiming sole Bhumidhari and Sirdari rights stating that petitioners have no such right over disputed land. Respondents 3 and 4 are off shoot in the same family tree of petitioners though from different branches. Petitioners on incorrect facts filed suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1950”) and it being decreed, got disputed plot recorded solely in their names though they have no rights. Petitioners have sold their rights on 25.8.1969 in favour of Mst. Sukhani wife of Bhulai. There is no compromise between parties and names of petitioners be expunged and names of Respondents 3 and 4 be entered.

4. Petitioners contested matter stating that Respondents 3 and 4 are not in any way from common family tree but they are distant relatives. Their names were incorrectly recorded in respect of disputed plots. When petitioners came to know they filed suit under Section 229-B. Respondent 4, Ram Autar entered in a compromise with petitioners while Respondent 3 did not appear despite service, hence matter proceeded ex parte against him and suit was ultimately decreed in favour of petitioners. Petitioners have deposited ten times rental and became Bhumidhar.

5. Smt. Sukhani, wife of Bhulai, also filed an objection claiming mutation of her name over Plots No. 240 and 208.

6. Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “CO”) vide order dated 22.6.1971 rejected objections and decided matter in favour of petitioners. Respondents 3 and 4 preferred Appeals No. 1062 and 1063 respectively under Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1953”), which was allowed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Harraiya, Basti (hereinafter referred to as the “SOC”) and the matter was remanded in respect of Respondent 3. In regard to Respondent 4, Ram Autar SOC said that he had already entered into a compromise, cannot withdraw.

7. On remand, CO again decided matter vide order dated 4.6.1973 holding that Respondent 3 has no interest left and ex parte decree was binding upon him. Thereagainst Bhulai preferred Appeal No. 3703 under Section 11 of Act, 1953, which was allowed by SOC directing that name of Bhulai should be entered and petitioners’ name should be deleted for the reason that they have already sold their share in disputed land vide sale-deed dated 25.8.1969 in favour of Smt. Sukhani. Thereafter two revisions were filed, i.e., Revisions No. 469 by Respondent 4 and 451 by petitioners. DDC allowed revision filed by Respondent 4 and dismissed revision filed by petitioners holding that Respondents 3 and 4 both are entitled for half share each.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that DDC has committed manifest error in law by allowing revision of Respondent 4, whose appeal was already dismissed by SOC and, thereagainst he had not filed any revision. After remand, the order passed by CO was challenged only by Respondent 3 a nd appeal was filed only by Respondent 3, therefore, Respondent 4 could not have f