JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Man Bahadur Singh and Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional C.S.C. for State.

2. Facts in brief are that the disputed land are Khata No.94 area 6.47 acres and Khata No.4 area 2.01 acres situated in village-Shittalpur, Pargana-Etah Saket, District-Etah. The said village was brought under consolidation operations, wherein an objection was filed by one of original petitioners under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Act of 1953) that the share of Satya Ram S/o Bhoj Raj (original respondent No.4) in land in dispute was 1/3 and it was wrongly been shown as 1/2 in basic year, which required a correction.

3. According to petitioners pedigree of parties to lis is as follows:-

Whereas per contra, the pedigree as given by respondents is as follows :-

4. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the facts, oral and documentary evidence on record vide order dated 16.08.1976, has rejected the objections set up by original respondent No.4 and maintained the basic year entry, holding him to be co-sharers of land in question, only to the extent of 1/3 share. The relevant findings returned by the Consolidation Officer are as follows:-

5. Two appeals were preferred under Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 against above referred order and both were dismissed by an order dated 23.10.1978 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The relevant findings thereof are as follows:-

6. The original respondent No.4 being aggrieved by above referred orders filed a revision under Section 48 of Act of 1953, which was allowed by impugned order 17.05.1980. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :-

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Court has erroneously placed heavy reliance on evidence of ‘Panda’ and documents of his Bahi, which was placed on record being document paper No.16/1, 16/2 and 16/3 without being marked as exhibit and as such they were not duly proved.

8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not set aside the findings returned by the Appellate Court in specific words. The Revisional Court has not considered the specific finding returned by the Appellate Court that identity and continuity of land does not remain same and land does not originally belong to ‘Ganga Ram’ as well as no reasoning was assigned in impugned order that how land in question belonged to ‘Ganga Ram’.

9. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither accepted the finding in regard to pedigree submitted by petitioners nor given any reason to accept the pedigree given by respondents.

10. Learned counsel for petitioners has read out the reasons given by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation as referred above and has also referred the order passed by Revisional Court that it has interfered with a well reasoned order without considering the factors given in Section 48 of Act of 1953.

11. Learned counsel for contesting respondents have vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that oral evidence of ‘Panda’ i.e. Sadashiv, which was a relevant document as it was based on Bahi, was on record. Bahi of Samvat 1973, 1997 and 2022 has disclosed that Bhoj Raj was son of Girwar. It was a material and admissible evidence and no better evidence was available which could contradict it.

12. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on Dukh Haran Tewary And Ors. Vs. Dulhin Bihasa Kuer And Anr. :AIR 1963 Pat 390. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of The Collector of Farrukhabad Vs. Gajraj Singh, 15 Ind Cas 625 and the relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

“In default of this he has sought for documentary evidence in the books kept by certain Brahmins known as pandas at Soran on the