The burden of proof lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Mata Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jay Prakash Singh Vats, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.

2. Under challenge is an order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the D.D.C. Pratapgarh rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners, as a consequence, the order passed by the S.O.C. dated 12.3.2019 has been affirmed, resultantly, the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in the disputed Khata has been turned down.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed Khata nos.419 and 396 situate in Gram Lauli Pokhtakham, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh are the subject matter of the controversy. It is stated that the petitioner and the private respondent no.4 were members of the joint Hindu family and the property is coming down in the family from the common ancestors. It is also urged that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the pedigree has been given. It is stated that in the base year Khatauni, the name of the petitioners alongwith that of the private respondent no.4 was recorded in the Khata No.419, however Khata No.396 was exclusively recorded in the name of private respondent no.4 by mistake.

4. It is urged that this is the second round of litigation inasmuch as in the first round, the petitioners had filed their objections under Section 9 -A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the matter came up upto the High Court from where the matter was remanded to decide the matter, afresh.

5. It is submitted that the private respondent no.4 did not file any objection insofar as Khata No.419 is concerned and as such and even if at all the petitioners were unable to establish their claim of co tenancy insofar as the Khata No.396 is concerned, but nevertheless the claim of the petitioners could not be rejected in respect of Khata No.419. However, since the name of the petitioners continued in the base year Khatauni in respect of Khata No.419 and in absence of any objections by the private respondent no.4, the said entry should have continued and there was no occasion for the three consolidation courts to have deleted the names of the petitioners from Khata no.419.

6. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that private respondent no.4 did not file any evidence either in the first round of litigation or even in the second round, however at the fag end of proceedings, the private respondent no.4 furnished a copy of the family register to substantiate that the pedigree as set up by the petitioners was different and in such circumstances, the same should not have been noticed by the three consolidation authorities but by relying upon the same, it has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice in depriving the co tenancy rights to the petitioners in respect of Khata No.419 and consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Shri Vats learned counsel for the private respondent at the outset submits that the alleged pedigree as mentioned by the petitioners in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, is not correct. It is further urged that the private respondent has also given his pedigree which is part of his short counter affidavit where it has been stated that the common ancestor was Nankau who was survived by his two sons Bhagauti Deen and Shanker. It is further stated that private respondent no.4 Ram Chandar is son of Ram Nihore who in turn is the son of Bhagauti Deen. It is urged that the petitioners allege Ram Asrey, to be the son of Bhulai and Bhulai is alleged to be the son of Bhagauti Deen, is a false averment and