JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This matter was taken up on 5th April, 2010 on which date Sri Rai had made a statement that inspite of repeated communications, no response has been shown by any of the respondents. This matter has been taken up again after almost one year and the same situation persists. Accordingly, there is no reason to further adjourn the matter. 3. The dispute relates to the share of the parties on the basis of an admitted pedigree which is gainfully reproduced hereinunder: Sabhau Dubri Ramtahal Bachai ‘Bachhilal’ Nepal Jaipal Algoo Bhaggo Suddin Chirkut Sumiran Buddhoo Bihagoo Sihagoo 4. As already noticed above, no counter-affidavit has been filed as none of the respondents have responded inspite of service of notice, and therefore, the aforesaid pedigree remains undisputed. 5. The findings recorded, on the basis of the material that was on record indicates that in 1291 Fasli, the names of all the three sons of Sabhau were recorded. This position remains uncontroverted. If the said pedigree is to be believed then all the three branches can claim equal shares. It is something different that the branch of Chirkut has not contested the matter either before the Court below or before this Court as well. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to reverse the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to produce any evidence in support of his claim or his share before the authorities. 6. Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter had gone ex parte against the petitioner and the fact that notice had not been served on him is admitted as is evident from the findings recorded in the impugned order itself. In such a situation, he had not been given any opportunity to lead evidence. Alternatively, Sri Singh submits that as matter of fact, once the pedigree is undisputed, and if the property is treated to be ancestral then also the petitioner gets a share. Even otherwise, if the names of all the sons of Sabhau stood recorded then on that score also the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the share to which the petitioner is entitled as per the admitted pedigree. 7. Even otherwise, if the names of all the sons of Sabhau stood recorded then on that score also the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the share to which the petitioner is entitled as per the admitted pedigree. 7. The contention therefore is that either way the petitioner has to succeed to the property to the extent of his share in the circumstances indicated above and no other proof would be required to determine his share. 8. Sri Vinod Kumar Rai contends that the inconsistency in the entries later on disentitles the petitioner to raise his claim in the manner indicated above. 9. The aforesaid facts have been categorically stated in the writ petition to which no counter-affidavit has been filed and it also appears from the perusal of the impugned orders that the pedigree remains undisputed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation therefore in the opinion of the Court fell into an error by proceeding to nonsuit the petitioner on the ground that he had not led any evidence. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 10. The writ petition is allowed. 11. The order dated 28.4.1976 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh orders after putting all the parties to notice including the heirs of the respective branches preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. —————