Writ petitions must demonstrate material deprivation and include necessary parties, or they risk dismissal as mis-conceived.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. Taking note of the facts of the case as also that the matter is extremely old and also that in view of order proposed to be passed no prejudice could be caused to private respondent(s), the issuance of notice to the private-respondent(s), as per the report(s) of the Office, is hereby dispensed with.

3. The petitioners namely Basdeo and Sukh Deo, sons of Gopal, by means of the present petition, have impeached the order dated 27.07.1971 (annexed as annexure No.4 to the petition) passed by the opposite party No.9-Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, Camp at Faizabad, in Revision No.973 of 1971 preferred under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The order dated 27.07.1971 reads as under:-

"This is revision No. 973/1971 filed by Sri Ram Lal s/ o Sri Suchit against Sri Basdeo and others under section 48-48 of the Consolidation Holdings Act against the judgment and order of A.S.O.C. dated 19.6.71 in appeal No. 2247 in respect of khatas No. 114, 115, 118, 166 and 175 of village Sheikhpur, Malpura, Pargana Bidhar, Tahsil Tanda, District Faizabad.

2. The parties in this case belong to the same family as will be clear from the following pedigree-

In the basic year khatauni Sri Basdeo and others s/o Sri Gopal, Kanhaiya and others ss/o Sri Suchit as well as Sri Udit s/o Sri Bechu are recorded as sirdar over the land in question. Sri Ram Lal one of the sons of Sri Suchit filed a time bared objection on 7.1.71 claiming co-tenancy rights in the same.

3. The Consolidation Officer in case No. 3325 observed that the village was published under section 9 of U.P. Consolidation Holdings Act in March 1970 and the present objection has been filed on 7.1.71 Sri Ram Lal in has alleged that he is living outside in connection his service. He did not know the his name was not recorded over the land in question. The consolidation officer however held that the explanation furnished by Sri Ram Lal was not satisfactory and dismissed his objection as time barred. The reupan Sri Ram Lal preferred appeal No. 2247 against the above order C.O. The A.C.S.O.C. also dismissed the appeal. Now Sri Ram Lal has come in revision against the above order of the courts.

I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the orders of the courts below. I have also gone through the lower court's filed in this regard. It is admitted that Sri Ram Lal is also son of Sri Suchit as brother of Sri Kanhaiya and there is no reason why he should not be recorded as co-tenant along with his other brothers. In the interest of justice the C.O.C. has exercised his discretion properly in the interest of justice as it is admitted that Sri Ram Lal is brother of Sri Kanhaiya and other ss/o Sri Suchit. Under the circumstances I therefore condone the delay and proceed to decide the case on merits, specially when all the facts are admitted in this case. Sri Ram Lal s/o Sri Suchit is obviously entitled to recorded as co sirdars along with his brothers Sri Kanhaiya in the khatas in question.

5. In view of the above I allow the present revision and set aside the orders of the courts below. The result is that the share of Sri Ram Lal s/o Suchit shall have 1/12 share in all the khatas along with 1/12 share each of his other three brothers in 1/3 share of their father Sri Suchit in the khatas in question. The village Papers shall be corrected accordingly. A copy of this order shall be sent to C.O. for necessary amaldramad in the village papers."

4. The petitioners, named above, have also assailed the order dated 05.12.1981 passed in Reference No.1332 (Ram Lal v. Sukhdeo) preferred