BAIJU Vs. D.D.C. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, dated 24 7.73.

(2.) The petitioner was recorded in the basic year as sirdar and the contesting opposite parties were found in possession, hence in C.H. Form 4 it was indicated that the contesting opposite parties were claiming co-tenancy right in the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority had negatived the claim of the contesting opposite parties nos. 3 and 4, namely Raj Narain and Mahadeo. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority the contesting opposite parties Raj Narayan and Mahadeo preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 24.7.73. The petitioner has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that there was no written objection filed by the contesting opposite parties hence their claim was wrongly recognised by the revisional court and bar of Sec. 11A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would stand in the way of the recognition of the claim of the contesting opposite parties.