SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 41 and 42 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘disputed khatas’) of Village Hetimpur, Paragana Zamania, District-Ghazipur. It is the admitted case of the parties that the disputed khatas were acquired by one Santu. The petitioners were recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed khatas in the basic year records,. During the consolidation proceedings in the village Case No. 72/310 under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1953’) was registered on the objections dated 26.3.1971 filed by Jhuri, i.e., respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is the son of Sheopal. In his objections, the respondent No. 2 claimed that Sheopal was the sole tenure holder of the disputed khatas and the petitioners were fictitiously recorded in the basic year records relating to the disputed khatas.

3. In his objections, respondent No. 2 alleged that Santu had two sons Jokhan and Mokhan and Sheopal was the descendant of Mokhan. In his objections, the respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners were not the descendant of Santu, and therefore, had no right or title in the disputed khatas. Sheopal was alive on the date objections were filed by respondent No. 2 and it was stated in the objections that Sheopal was of unsound mind and not in a position to judge his interest, and therefore, the objections were being filed by respondent No. 2. The petitioners contested the objections filed by respondent No. 2 and in their reply the petitioners challenged the maintainability of the objections filed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that Sheopal was not of unsound mind and Jhuri was not an interested person under Section 9 of the Act, 1953. The petitioners also denied the pedigree as alleged by respondent No. 2 and set up a different pedigree. In their reply, the petitioners alleged that Santu had three sons Jokhan, Mokhan and Harkhu and the petitioners were the descendants of Harkhu while Sheopal was the descendant of Mokhan. On the basis of the pedigree set up by them, the petitioners claimed 1/2 share in the disputed khatas. In their reply, the petitioners also alleged that Sheopal had sold his half share in the disputed khatas through sale-deeds dated 10.10.1956 and 11.2.1959, and therefore, he had no share in the disputed khatas.

4. In case No. 72/310, the Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, ‘C.O.’) framed eight issues which related to the maintainability of the objections filed by Jhuri, i.e., respondent No. 2 and the rights of the parties in the disputed khatas. The C.O. vide his order dated 8.6.1972 dismissed the objections filed by respondent No. 2 as not maintainable. Respondent No. 2 did not file any documentary evidence before the C.O. to prove that Sheopal was of unsound mind. After noticing the failure of respondent No. 2 to produce any documentary evidence to support his allegation that Sheopal was of unsound mind and the fact that Sheopal had executed sale-deeds dated 10.10.1956 and 11.2.1959, which were not challenged as well as after considering the oral testimony of the witnesses, the C.O. recorded a finding that Sheopal did not suffer from any mental infirmity, and therefore, the objections by Jhuri, i.e., respondent No. 2 were not maintainable. In his order dated 8.6.1972, the C.O. also rejected the claim of respondent No. 2 on merits and held that the petitioners were tenure holders of the disputed khatas. In his order dated 8.6.1972, the C.O. held that respondent No. 2 had failed to prove the pedigree as alleged by him in his objections. While recording a finding that the petitioners were correctly recorded as tenure holders of the disputed khatas, the C.O. relied on the entries in the revenue records of 1356 Fasli, 1359 Fasli, 1363 Fasli to 1365 Fasli an