JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri D.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vasu Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the private-respondents no.4 and 5 as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 16.07.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revisions No.199 and 341, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed while the other revision preferred by the Baij Nath was allowed.

3. The original-petitioner Garibey died during pendency of the petition and he is represented by his legal heirs. The private-respondent no.4 Baij Nath also died and is represented by his legal heirs. For the sake of convenience, this Court shall refer to the parties as they appeared in the original memo of the writ petition.

4. The dispute relates to the plots of basic year Khata No.94 recorded jointly in the names of the petitioner and the respondents no.4 and 5. The petitioner Garibey filed his objections under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 wherein he had raised his objections in respect of Khata No.94, situate in Village Panjsara, Paragana and Tehsil Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow. It was the case of the petitioner that he had exclusive rights in respect of Plot No.308 and further he claimed 1/2 share in remaining land of basic year Khata No.94.

5. Disputing the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, the private-respondent no.4 and 5 also filed their objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 wherein they claimed their exclusive rights in respect of the plots comprised in Khata No.94 except Plot No.308.

6. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues as to whether Garibey was the exclusive tenure holder of the Plot No.308 and the other as to the share of the parties in the remaining land of the disputed Khatas. The Consolidation Officer after considering the evidence led before him by means of the order dated 30.11.1981 held that the Plot No.308 was the exclusive property of Garibey whereas Plots of Khata No.94 and 59 were held to be of private-respondents no.4 and 5 and in plots of Khata No.85 the petitioner and the respondents no.4 and 5 were given half share each respectively.

7. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Consolidation Officer, Garibey preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereafter referred to as "SOC", in short), which was registered as Appeal No.169. The SOC partially allowed the appeal of Garibey by means of judgment dated 26.03.1982 and in respect of Khata No.94, it granted co-tenancy rights to Garibey. He also found that since the Plot No.308 was also recorded in Khata No.97, consequently, it rejected the contention of Garibey that he had exclusive rights therein and the SOC granted joint rights to the respondents No.4 and 5 along with Garibey in Plot No.308 and so far as claim of Garibey for 1/2 share in the plots of Khata No.94 is concerned, it was also rejected.

8. Garibey and Baij Nath i.e. respondents no.4 and 5 both being aggrieved by the order of the SOC dated 26.03.1982 preferred separate revisions. The revision of Baij Nath was registered as Revision No.199 while the revision of Garibey was registered as Revision No.341. Both the aforesaid revisions were consolidated and by means of the judgment dated 16.07.1982, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of Baij Nath and rejected the revision of Garibey, as a result, the order of SOC was set aside and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.11.1981 was maintained.

9. Being aggrieved against the said order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.1982 the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

10. Shri D.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has stated that there were statements