JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1731971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the proceedings arising out of an objection filed under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act). Brief history of the case is as follows. 2. The disputed holding, Khata No. 166, situate in village Sanehipur, Pargana Sadarpur, Tahsil Sidhauli, district Sitapur was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Ram Sanehi, opposite party No. 4, since deceased and substituted by Sant Lal and Govind Prasad. The petitioners, namely Bisheshwar, Het Ram, Sri Krishna, sons of Ghisa and Brij Lal and Maheshwar, sons of Ramadhin claimed cotenancy rights in the said disputed holding. Their case was that the land in dispute was a joint family property and Raghubir Singh was recorded in the representative capacity and after the death of Raghubir Singh the name of Ram Sanehi was recorded. They claimed to be in possession over the land in dispute as well. After taking evidence the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1481970 allowed the objection and held the petitioners to be cotenure holders along with the opposite party No. 4. It was held that the opposite party No. 4 holds 1/3rd share and the petitioners 1 to 3 hold 1/3rd share while petitioners 4 and 5 hold 1/3rd share in the property in dispute. Aggrieved by this order the opposite party No. 4 preferred appeal which was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by order dated 1311971. He also held that the land in dispute was a joint family property and recorded in representative capacity in the name of Raghubir. Thus the claim of the petitioners regarding cotenancy was upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant Ram Sanehi was dismissed. Still feeling aggrieved by the order. Ram Sanehi preferred a revision which was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Raghubir was the tenureholder and after his death it devolved only upon Ram Sanehi, the opposite party No. 4. Still feeling aggrieved by the order. Ram Sanehi preferred a revision which was heard and allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Raghubir was the tenureholder and after his death it devolved only upon Ram Sanehi, the opposite party No. 4. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the claim of the petitioners by holding that in the objection this case has not been taken by the petitioners that the land in dispute was a joint family property and that they have not been able to prove their case with regard to cotenancy rights as claimed by them. After considering Khasra entries, wherein possession of the petitioners was recorded on some of the plots, he held that on the basis of such possession the petitioners could not be held to be cotenure holders along with the opposite party No. 4 in whose name the land in dispute was continuing after the death of Raghubir. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the averments contained in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit and have also gone through the various documents filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the erroneous view that the petitioners had not taken up a case that the land in dispute belonged to joint family property. The learned counsel urged that this case was set up by the petitioners and the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had upheld the claim of cotenancy right of the petitioners on that basis. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioners' possession over the land in dispute goes to show that the petitioners were in possession on their own right because it was neither set up nor proved that they were in possession over the land in question as licensee on behalf of Raghubir or on behalf of the opposite party 4. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioners' possession over the land in dispute goes to show that the petitioners were in possession on their own right because it was neither set up nor proved that they were in possession over the land in question as licensee on behalf of Raghubir or on behalf of the opposite party 4. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to the statement of Het Ram, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure1 to the writ petition, in which after stating about pedigree he has deposed that both the persons were living jointly and Raghubir was Karta of the family and thereafter Ram Sanehi became Karta and that the land in dispute was recorded in their names. He further deposed that all the persons have been in possession over the land in dispute. In view of this statement it appears that the petitioners had claimed cotenancy rights in the land in dispute on the ground that the land in dispute was a joint family property and that the names of Raghubir and Ram Sanehi were recorded in representative capacity. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had considered and upheld the claim of the petitioners on the aforesaid grounds. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has very clearly observed that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Raghubir in representative capacity and that the land belonged to joint family. It is thus evident that the claim of the petitioners was based on the aforesaid ground. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the claim of the petitioners by saying that such a case was not set up by the petitioners in their objection. This approach of the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be entirely erroneous because the pleadings could not be construed meticulously and the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected merely on the aforesaid technical ground. The petitioners, as already observed above, had claimed that the land in dispute was a joint family property and that the names of Raghubir and Ram Sanehi were recorded in representative capacity. That claim was upheld by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by taking the aforesaid erroneous view. That claim was upheld by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thus the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by taking the aforesaid erroneous view. The learned counsel for the petitioners further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly held that the petitioner's claim regarding cotenancy rights cannot be accepted on the ground of their being in possession over some of the plots in dispute. His contention is that the petitioners were in possession over the land on their own rights and not as a licensee on behalf of Raghubir or Ram Sanehi. The learned counsel has further urged that the petitioners' case was that the names of Raghubir and Ram Sanehi were recorded in representative capacity and, as such, Ram Sanehi's name alone was recorded after the death of Raghubir, the mutation order will not make Ram Sanehi as the sole tenure holder. The learned counsel contended that since the land in dispute belonged to joint family property and the petitioners were cotenure holders with Raghubir and Ram Sanehi and, as such, mere recording of the names of Raghubir and Ram Sanehi over the land in dispute will not extinguish the rights of the petitioners in the holding in dispute. Since 1 am remanding the case to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding it on merits, I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the aforesaid arguments. The Deputy Director of Consolidation will consider the claim of the petitioners on merits and according to law after hearing both the parties. 5. The writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 1731971 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to restore the revision filed by Ram Sanehi and to decide it on merits, according to law and in the light of the observations made above. As this case is of the year 1971 and, as such, it is expected that the Deputy Director of Consolidation will expeditiously decide the revision after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. No order as to costs.