JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, for the petitioners and Sri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 29.01.2010 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2010, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to share of the parties in the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1139 of village and pargana Tappal, tahsil Kher, district Aligarh, in which names of the petitioners and respondents-4 to 9 were recorded. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 21.02.2006 decided share of the parties. Respondents-4 to 9 filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 114 of 2009-10) from aforesaid order along with delay condonation application, alleging therein that their signatures were obtained on plain papers, which was later on utilized for manufacturing conciliation proceeding and their share were not correctly decided. The disputed land was ancestral property coming from the time of common ancestor Ganga Ram, who had total 180 bigha land. Ganga Ram was inherited by his two sons Gulab and Teeka. The petitioners are descendants of Gulab and respondents-4 to 9 are descendants of Teeka. Gulab had four sons Bhupal, Kundan, Ram Lal and Kishori. Branch of Ram Lal was issueless and his share was jointly inherited by Bhupal, Kundan and Kishori. Thereafter their share was 1/6 each. Branch of Bhupal sold his ? share (i.e. 30 bigha) in aforesaid ancestral property, in favour of remaining persons of his branch in 1961. Tahsildar by order dated 02.06.1962 directed for mutation of the names of transferees and made a separate khata of this land, which was came to be recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1120. Remaining land (i.e. 150 bigha) was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1139. Therefore branch of Teeka jointly have ? share (i.e. 90 bigha) and branch of Gulab jointly have 2/5 share (60 bigha) in it. 4. Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 08.10.2009, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and by order dated 29.01.2010, partly allowed the appeal. Therefore branch of Teeka jointly have ? share (i.e. 90 bigha) and branch of Gulab jointly have 2/5 share (60 bigha) in it. 4. Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 08.10.2009, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and by order dated 29.01.2010, partly allowed the appeal. He included land of khata 1120 in khata 1139 and held that Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) have 1/36 share each, Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-5 to 6) have 1/24 share each, Ratan and Ram Chandra (now petitioners-7 to 10) have ? share each, Rajbeer (respondent-4) and Yadram (respondent-9) have ? share each, Santosh, Khajan, Pohap Chand and Kunwar Pal (respondents-5 to 8) have 1/24 share each. In pursuance of order dated 29.01.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation corrected the records exercising powers under Section 42-A of the Act on 18.03.2010. 5. It may be mentioned that Settlement Officer Consolidation, while deciding share, has inadvertently left in deciding share of Narain son of Gopal. Gopal, whose share was determined as 1/6, had three sons as such share of Narain would be 1/18, share of Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) would be 1/54 share each and share of Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-4 to 5) would be 1/36 share each according to his order. 6. The petitioner filed four revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 191, 232, 234 and 303), from the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation, consolidated the revisions and heard together and his order dated 27.10.2010, partly allowed Revision Nos. 191 and 232 and dismissed Revision Nos. 234 and 303. He excluded land of khata 1120 from partition. In khata 1139, he held that Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) jointly have ? share, Ratan and Ram Chandra (now petitioners-7 to 10) jointly have ? share, Rajbeer (respondent-4) and Yadram (respondent-9) have ? share each, Santosh, Khajan, Pohap Chand and Kunwar Pal (respondents-5 to 8) jointly have ? share. It may be mentioned that Deputy Director of Consolidation left to decide share of Narain, Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-4 to 6). Hence this petition has been filed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly at the time of Ganga Ram, total land was 180 bigha. share. It may be mentioned that Deputy Director of Consolidation left to decide share of Narain, Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-4 to 6). Hence this petition has been filed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly at the time of Ganga Ram, total land was 180 bigha. Ganga Ram was inherited by his two sons Gulab and Teeka. The petitioners are descendants of Gulab and respondents-4 to 9 are descendants of Teeka. Gulab had four sons Bhupal, Kundan, Ram Lal and Kishori. Branch of Ram Lal was issueless and his share was jointly inherited by Bhupal, Kundan and Kishori. Branch of Bhupal sold his ? share (i.e. 30 bigha) in aforesaid ancestral property, in favour of remaining persons of his branch in 1961, whose names were mutated by order of Tahsildar dated 02.06.1962 and also a separate khata was created of this land, which came to be recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1120. 8. Remaining land (i.e. 150 bigha) was jointly recorded in basic consolidation year khata 1139, which is now joint stock to be partitioned between the co-sharers. In this joint stock 90 bigha land was of branch of Teeka and 60 bigha land was of branch of Gulab. Therefore branch of Teeka jointly have ? share (i.e. 90 bigha) and branch of Gulab jointly have 2/5 share (60 bigha) in khata 1139. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any mistake in deciding shares of respondents-4 to 9. But while deciding shares of branch of Gulab, he has committed mistakes. 9. According to pedigree, branch of Kundan will have ? share and Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly held that Ratan and Ram Chandra (now petitioners-7 to 10) jointly have ? share. Branch of Kishori had ? share. Kishori had one son Gopal. Gopal had three sons namely Narian, Soni and Ishwari. Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) are descendants of Soni, will jointly get 1/15 share, Narain (petitioner-4) will get 1/15 share and Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-5 and 6) who are descendants of Ishwari, will jointly get 1/15 share. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition partly succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2010 is modified. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition partly succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.10.2010 is modified. Devi Charan, Satya Prakash and Smt. Ramwati (petitioners-1 to 3) will jointly get 1/15 share, Narain (petitioner-4) will get 1/15 share and Ganga Ram and Smt. Jayanti (petitioners-5 and 6) will jointly get 1/15 share. Petition Allowed.