BUDHI RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitions and Sri Namwar Singh, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

(2.) BEFORE the consolidation authorities, the dispute between the parties was with regard to plot no. 177/229 -A, 177/229 -B, 177, 178 and 220. In the basic year the said plots were recorded in the name or Ram Deo, the father of the present petitioners. Respondent nos. 4 to 12 filed objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') claiming co -tenancy rights on the basis that the plots were ancestral and they are entitled to share therein according to the pedigree. The pedigree of the parties as set out in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer is as under:

(3.) SRI T.N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that respondents had filed objection only with regard to plot nos. 177/229 -A and 177/229 -B hence their claim for co -tenancy could not be considered for other plots in view of the bar created by Section 11 -A of the Act.