Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents and Shri Rakesh Mishra, learned counsel representing the private respondents.

2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted challenging the orders passed by the consolidation courts in the proceedings initially drawn under section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') whereby co-tenancy rights in the land in question have been granted to the respondents along with the petitioners.

3. For the purposes of appreciating the issues and controversies involved in this matter, the following pedigree will be relevant to be mentioned:

			Okkfgn vyh@okftn 'kkg
	cspbZ 'kkg				HkXxw 'kkg
		banjh'k	Qjhn	'kjhQ		;quql vyh
gehn		'kCchj	Tkfcj	Edlwn	lkfcj
	Ekgewn	ybZd	vyh vgen	oyh eksgEen	rkt eksŒ	eqfLye
[kyhy		Tyhy	Tkxhj		lQhd
					'kkgukt ckuks ¼L=h]

      4. So far as the aforesaid pedigree is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the undisputed original recorded tenure holder of the land in question was one Wazid Shah, who had two sons, namely, (i) Bechai Shah and (ii) Bhaggu Shah. The petitioners are the successors in interest of Bechai Shah, whereas the private respondents in this petition are the successors in interest of other son of Wazid Shah, namely, Bhaggu Shah. Khatauni pertaining to the year 1956 F is on record where the land in question is recorded in the name of Bechai and Bhaggu. The khatauni pertaining to 1359 F is also on record and there too Bechai and Bhaggu are found recorded jointly, however, there is an amaldaramad of some Sanad, namely, Sanad No.14 and Sanad No.42. Amaldaramad based on the grant of the said Sanad is mentioned in Khatauni 1359 F wherein it is clearly recorded that the rent paid by Bechai will be half and similarly in respect of Sanad No.42, the amaldaramad available in khatauni pertaining to 1359 F, it is recorded that the rent payable will be half. It is found recorded that half of the rent i.e. 3 Rupees 4 aanas of the total rent of 6 Rupees 8 aanas will be payable. The khatauni pertaining to 1360 F is also on record as annexure RA-3 annexed with the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioners wherein on both the khatas, name of Bechai is exclusively recorded.

5. On commencement of the second round of consolidation proceedings in the village concerned in which the land in question is situated, the names of the successors of Bechai Shah were found recorded in the basic year khatauni and accordingly an objection under section 9A(2) of the Act was filed by Bhaggu claiming co-tenancy rights.

6. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter accordingly and he granted co-tenancy rights to Bhaggu vide his judgment and order dated 22.12.2003. The petitioners preferred an appeal challenging the said order of the Consolidation Officer dated 22.12.2003 under section 11(2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who also reiterated the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer, granting co-tenancy rights to Bhaggu Shah and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide his order dated 29.08.2008.

7. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 22.12.2003 and 29.08.2008, a revision petition under section 48 of the Act was preferred by the petitioners, which too, has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 04.02.2014.

8. It is the aforesaid three orders dated 22.12.2003, 29.08.2008 and 04.02.2014 passed respectively by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director o