Court No. – 19 Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 2572 of 1978 Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad And Others Respondent :- Haunsla Prasad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S K Mehrotra,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C S C,R.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. The instant writ petition calls in question the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 165 under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P.C.H. Act, 1953') dated 30.04.1970 whereby the claim of the petitioners relating to co-tenancy rights in respect of base year Khata No. 123 and 141 was rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which also was rejected by means of judgment and order dated 07.09.1974. The effort of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid two judgments as mentioned above before the Deputy Director of Consolidation by filing a Revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act of 1953 ended in an unsuccessful endevour. 2. Being faced with three such judgments, the petitioner have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein by means of order dated 07.11.1978, the petition was admitted and the operation of the impugned orders was stayed. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the original petitioner Lalta Prasad expired so also the private respondent nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 expired and they were substituted by their legal heirs, however, for the sake 2. of convenience, the Court has referred to the original parties, as they were impleaded at the time of institution of the writ petition. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, an undisputed family tree as set up by the parties is being referred to. 5. Sri Debi Charan is the common ancestor who was survived by his four sons namely (i) Ram Avatar (ii) Nand Kishor (iii) Kali Prasad (iv) Bhagirathi. 6. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the son of Raghuvir son of Arjun who in turn is the son of Ram Awatar. While the private respondents no. 1 to 3 are the sons of Sarju Saran while private respondent nos. 4 and 5 are sons of Raj Narayan. They claim through the branch of Bhagirathi whereas the private respondent no. 6 is the son of Chandi Sahai, respondent no. 7 is the son of Suraj Narayan, private respondent nos. 8 and 9 are sons of Uday Narayan, private respondent no. 10 is the son of Lal Bahadur, private respondent no. 11 and 12 are the sons of Indrabali. All the aforesaid respondents nos. 6 to 12 claim their rights through the branch of Sri Nand Kishore. 7. It will also be relevant to notice that it is not disputed that Kali Prasad died issueless. Thus, on one hand the petitioner claiming his 1/3rd right through the branch of Ram Awatar whereas private respondent nos. 1 to 5 are the successors in interest from the branch of Bhagirathi while the respondent nos.