The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding co-tenancy rights and ancestral property, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Proceedings in present case are arising out of Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act, 1953"). It is not under much dispute that in basic year in regard to plot in question, name of petitioner and some of respondents were recorded as tenure holders.

2. One Santu (party respondent) along with three others (allegedly included the petitioner also) filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights. Objections were rejected by an order dated 21.10.1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal thereof was allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation by an order dated 05.04.1977 and a revision thereof filed on behalf of petitioner was dismissed on 02.06.1977. The orders dated 05.04.1977 and 02.06.1977 are impugned in this writ petition.

3. Pedigree submitted by petitioner as well as respondents are as follows -:

4. It is admitted case of parties that there is no dispute of half share of Shiv Baran. The only dispute is in regard to remaining half share of Sukhdeo.

5. Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner have submitted that Ramdeo died on 29.02.1965, therefore, his share went to his son and since Ramdutt died subsequently on 21.10.1965, therefore, his share has to go to Bhola only and since Santu was not recorded in revenue record, therefore, he would not get any share.

6. They have further submitted that since Sukhdev has two wives and from one wife, Bhola was born and other three sons were born from second wife, therefore, admission on their behalf would not itself be bound on Bhola and his son i.e. petitioner.

7. At this stage, Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh for respondent has submitted that this is an absolutely a new case which was neither argued before consolidation authorities nor any averment in this regard was mentioned in the writ petition.

8. Both learned counsel for petitioner have also referred document annexed along with this writ petition i.e. khatauni of 1334F in order to show that name of Santu was not referred though name of other parties were mentioned. They have also referred statements recorded during consolidation proceedings. They have also referred that petitioner was shown under co-occupancy and name of Santu was not mentioned in this document also. They have also referred a copy of khatauni of 1356F that Devdutt was also known as Sahdev.

9. Both learned counsel for petitioner have referred the following findings of Consolidation Officer :-

^^vNSoj us fuEu dkxtkr is'k fd;s gS&

1- udy [krkSuh 1334 Q ;g fookfnr xkVks ds lEcU/k esa gh gSA og Nkxqj o dYyw is'kljku f'ko oju Hkksyk okfyx jkenso jkenRr lgnso ukok fyxku is'kjke lq[knso oyh eq0 eknj [kqn 16 xkVs 2&22 ,0 yxku 12 dh gSA orZeku [kkrs esa ;gh xkVs gS igys oVs ekfyd us dqy 2 xkVs 2&73 , yxku 29&06 ntZ gSA

2 & udy lun Hkwfe/kjh foir iq= Nkxqj Hkksyk iq= lq[knso 1@2 va'k gSaA

3 & lun Hkwfe/kkjh ukVs oYn dYyw ds 1@4 va'k dk is'k gSA blij ogl fd;k x;k fd 'ks"k 1@4 va'k y[ku vkfn dk gSA

4 & udy fu.kZ; fnukad 30-09-72 vk v[kor okjk.klh vUMj ls'klu lsDlu 76 tehnkjh vokyh'ku okor xzke oj?khiqj vNSoj iq= Hkksyk cuke y[ku iq= jkenso xzke fgjkeu iqj dk gSA blls izxV gS fd Nsnh y[ku us [kkrk ds foHkktu dk nkok fd;k vNSoj dk 1@12 rFkk lUrw dk 1@12 va'k dgk FkkA vNSoj us ;g vihy fd;k Fkk D;ksafd vnkyr tsvks fu.kZ; fnukad 26-06-71 }kjk nkok Nsnh y[ku dks Lohdkj gqvk FkkA bl fu.kZ; esa Hkh lUrw dks lq[knso dk yMdk ekuk x;k gSA lUrw dk uke ntZ u gksuk dgk gSA og Hkh dgk x;k gS fd lUrw ds gd dks jkenso gh ns[