PANCHAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 3/1, 3/2, 3/2/1, 3/2/2, 3/2/3 and 3/3 and Sri Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 12/2/1981 passed under Sec. 9(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1953') by Consolidation Officer and the revisional order dtd. 30/12/1982 passed under Sec. 48 of the Act, 1982.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the predecessors of the present petitioners i.e. Petitioner No. 1 and Late Bairagi father of Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had filed objection under Sec. 9 of the Act, 1952 claiming co-tenancy right over Khata No. 112 on the ground that the family of the petitioners and the opposite parties were Joint Hindu Family and Late Ramhit was the Karta of the family. Being the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family his name alone was recorded under the representative capacity in the revenue records.