Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 27.8.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘DDC’).

2. Dispute relates to Gata No. 27-A plot No. 92/1 area 1 acre, Gata No. 27-B plot No. 92/3 area 0.7 acre and Gata No. 58 plot No. 47/7 area 0.85 acre, respectively, at village Naurangabad, Pargana Kanhaiya Mathu, District Jaunpur.

3. Gata No. 27-A and 27-B were recorded in basic year in the name of Har Govind (now deceased, substituted by his legal heirs respondent Nos. 2 to 4) and Gata No. 58 was recorded in basic year in the name of Rudra Pratap Shukla, petitioner (now deceased, substituted by his legal heirs). During consolidation proceedings in village Naurangabad, petitioner Rudra Pratap Shukla filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act, 1953’) claiming co-tenancy right in Gata NO. 27-A. He stated that property was ancestral tenancy and petitioner had 1/3rd share while Har Govind also had 1/3rd share and Bal Govind, respondent No. 7, had remaining 1/3rd share. Objection further in respect of Gata No. 27-B was raised that it was wrongly recorded in the name of Har Govind. It was part of Abadi and not exclusive bhumidhar of Har Govind. Separate objection was filed by Har Govind claiming tenancy right in Gata No. 58 on the ground of a compromise dated 21.12.1968 arrived between parties in a civil suit.

4. Consolidation Officer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘C.O.’) vide order dated 11.9.1972 allowed petitioner’s claim in respect of Gata No. 27-A and 27-B. He recorded a finding that entry was forged and illegal in respect of plot No. 92/3. He also found share of petitioner to the extent of 1/3rd in plot No. 92/2. Objection of Har Govind was rejected by C.O. in respect of Gata No. 58 and petitioner was held sole tenant in the said land.

5. Har Govind filed appeals before Settlement Officer, Consolidation (hereinafter to be referred as ‘SOC’) and both appeals of Har Govind were rejected by SOC vide order dated 18.11.1972. Thereafter, revision was filed by Har Govind which has been allowed by DDC vide order dated 27.8.1976. DDC has held that plot No. 92/3 area 0.7 acre was recorded as land of category 12 while parties have raised a claim that it was Abadi, hence, dispute was beyond the jurisdiction of Consolidation Court.

6. The order of DDC has been challenged on the ground that once it was found that entry of category 12 in revenue records in the name of Har Govind was incorrect, same was liable to be corrected else bar under Section 49 of Act, 1953 is attracted and entries having been maintained by Consolidation Court cannot be corrected by filing another suit. C.O. as well as SOC both found that area 0.7 acre, out of total area 1.59 acres pertaining to plot No. 92 was illegally recorded, inasmuch as, 0.79 acre was recorded as Abadi and remaining 1 acre kept in the name of Har Govind, meaning thereby, 0.7 acre was wrongly recorded in the name of Har Govind and it was either part of 1 acre or 0.59 acre. Similarly, in respect of Gata No. 27-A plot No. 92/1, compromise in Suit No. 700 of 1956 has wrongly been relied as it was not in respect to aforesaid land and could not have operated as res-judicata. In 1347 fasli, plot No. 92/2 was recorded in the name of Bansh Gopal, common ancestor of petitioner, Har Govind and others but in 1361 fasli it was wrongly recorded exclusively in the name of Har Govind though he had only 1/3 share in respect to above plot and thus only 1/3rd share of plot could have been recorded in his name as Bhumidhari, which shows that entry was wrongly made but DDC has failed to appreciate the above fact. Similarly, plot No. 47/7, gata No. 58, was under sole tenancy of petitioner and Har Govind had no share