Point of Law:
Evidence may not be admitted in a Revision under Section 48 of the Act, except on the general principles of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2/1.

2. This writ petition arises out of objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act). The petitioner, Smt. Lakshmania, now represented by her heir and legal representative, Harihar, filed objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, dated 24.12.1981 before the Consolidation Officer staking exclusive claim to land comprising Khata no.274 of Village Rakaba Dulma Patti, Pargana Sidhua Jogna, Tehsil Padrauna, District Deoria (now District Padrauna). The aforesaid Khata comprises plot nos.1165/22, 1166/56, 1189/20, 1578/50, 1163/30 and 1166/32. This land is hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. The objections were brought by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer against the second respondent, Smt. Tetri wife of Balbhadra, and now represented before this Court by her heir and legal representative, Sattan son of Balbhadra, seeking to exclude her name from the land in dispute. These objections were filed against Smt. Tetri, as she was recorded in the Basic Year to the extent of a half share.

3. The objections in substance said that the land in dispute was a personal acquisition of the petitioner's father, the late Gauri, but the second respondent's name has been wrongly entered in the revenue records. The second respondent contested the objections alleging that the land in dispute was the joint holding of Bhajan and Gauri, who were brothers. She was the daughter of Bhajan, whereas the petitioner, Smt. Lakshmania was Gauri's daughter. As such, the second respondent claimed that she was entitled to be recorded to the extent of a half share over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 04.05.1983 allowed the petitioner's objection, ordered expunction of the second respondent's name from the revenue records with a direction that the petitioner, Smt. Lakshmania wife of Mukhi be recorded as the exclusive tenure holder.

4. It may be mentioned in the passing that by the said order, the Consolidation Officers disposed of two other objections filed by the petitioner against different parties, relating to different lands, but those are not the subject matter of this petition.

5. Smt. Tetri, respondent no.2 aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer filed an appeal, being Appeal no.2675, under Section 11(1) of the Act, before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Padrauna, District Deoria. The Appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide an order dated 24.10.1984.

6. Both these orders were impugned by the second respondent before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Padrauna, District Deoria vide Revision no.119. The Revision was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, by his order dated 04.07.1986. He reversed the orders of both the Authorities below and ordered that Smt. Tetri, respondent no.2 be recorded over a half share in the land in dispute, along with the petitioner.

7. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been brought.

8. It must be remarked here that the objections filed by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer are very sketchy, bordering on vagueness. It does not say specifically as to how and from whom she had inherited/ acquired the land in dispute. It also does not plead any pedigree of parties, but asserts that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute and the second respondent, opposite party to the objections, has no concern with the said land, or she has ever been in possession or is now in possession. It is then said that the second respondent's name was ordered to be expunged from the land in dispute, and that in the Malikan Register the said order is recorded. There is no reference in the objections, eve