JUDGMENT Manish Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, who has filed the Caveat in the present writ petition. 2. This Court at the very beginning had asked learned counsel for the respondent that whether he wants to file any counter affidavit or is ready to argue the matter finally, he has submitted that he is ready to argue the matter finally without any counter affidavit. 3. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ayodhya in Revision No. 424/2014530423000029 (Hari Prasad v. Ram Chet) relating to village Jarahi, Pargana Amsin, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the name of the petitioners have already been entered in the Khatauni of 1359 fasli and the petitioners have been in continuous possession of Khata Nos. 301 & 97. 5. It is further submitted that the second consolidation proceedings had started in 1980s and in the consolidation proceedings, the respondent no. 2 had filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1953) claiming the co-tenancy either in full or in the ratio of 1/2:1/2 on Khata Nos. 301 & 97 situated at village Jarahi, Pargana Amsin, Tehil Sadar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, on the basis of succession/co- tenancy as it is an ancestral property. The said claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by its order dated 25.01.1999. Against the order dated 25.01.1999, the respondent no. 2 had preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed on 14.07.2003. Against the appellate order dated 14.07.2003, the respondent no. 2 (Hari Prasad Maurya) had preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which was allowed by the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 6. It is further submitted that as per the pedigree which is mentioned in Para 6 of the writ petition which is not disputed by respondent no. 2, the petitioners are sons of Late Ram Chet meaning hereby that petitioners belong to the family of Late Lochan, the elder son of Late Sahai and respondent no. 6. It is further submitted that as per the pedigree which is mentioned in Para 6 of the writ petition which is not disputed by respondent no. 2, the petitioners are sons of Late Ram Chet meaning hereby that petitioners belong to the family of Late Lochan, the elder son of Late Sahai and respondent no. 2 (Hari Prasad) belongs to the family of Late Juravan, the second son of Late Sahai. 7. For convenience, the pedigree mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition is described hereinbelow:- 8. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had filed an objection under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 and the same has rightly been rejected by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that after completion of earlier consolidation proceedings, the khataunis of 1359 fasli were prepared separately as far as the families of eldest son of Sahai to which the petitioners belong and the second son of Sahai to whom the respondent no. 2 belongs mentioning therein the khata numbers. The name of the father of the petitioners was entered in the khatauni of 1359 fasli and the names of predecessors of respondent no. 2 have been entered regarding different Gata numbers. 9. It is further submitted that after the entry in the khatauni of 1359 fasli in the revenue records, either the predecessors of the respondent no. 2 or the respondent no. 2 have never ever challenged the same and during the consolidation proceedings, which were started in 1980s, the objection was filed and it has rightly been rejected by the Consolidation Officer and upheld by the appellate court. 10. It is further submitted that the revisional court had ignored all these facts which has been mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer and passed an order in favour of the respondent no. 2 directing therein for entry of the name of respondent no. 2 in khata no. 301 & 97 as a co-tenure holder as it is an ancestral property. 11. It is further submitted that for accepting the claim of the respondent no. 2 directing therein for entry of the name of respondent no. 2 in khata no. 301 & 97 as a co-tenure holder as it is an ancestral property. 11. It is further submitted that for accepting the claim of the respondent no. 2 that it is an ancestral property, the reason which has been assigned is that the Sijra i.e. the family tree is accepted to the petitioners who were respondents in the revision, failing completely the law settled by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that the onus is on the person, who is claiming that it is an ancestral property to establish that the same has been purchased from the fund/nucleus of Joint Hindu Family. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is unable to dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners but has submitted that the issue that the property was purchased from the fund/nucleus of Joint Hindu Family had never been raised by anyone rather, the claim was on the basis of succession, the property being an ancestral property. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out in the present case is that from the records as discussed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it is clear that in 1301 fasli, all properties including disputed one were recorded in the name of Sahai. The petitioners and respondent no. 2 are decendants of Sahai and belong to the same family. It is also clear that in previous round of consolidation proceedings, different khataunis were separately prepared in the name of different heirs of Sahai after his demise, distributing the different chaks which were thus distributed amongst his heirs as finds recorded in khatauni of 1359 fasli. In the result, it no more remained an ancestral property and separate rights were created in the names of the khatedars. It may also be mentioned that all the relevant documents relating to distribution of properties of Sahai in separate khataunis were provided by none else than the respondent no.2. In these facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 cannot extend his claim of co-tenancy with the petitioners on the basis of it being an ancestral property. 14. The predecessors of respondent no. In these facts and circumstances, the respondent no. 2 cannot extend his claim of co-tenancy with the petitioners on the basis of it being an ancestral property. 14. The predecessors of respondent no. 2 had also got their share separately and entered in the khatauni separately from the same property. If the argument of counsel for the respondent no. 2 is accepted, then the respondents should give rights and share to the petitioners in the land which is entered in the khatauni in the name of predecessors of respondent no. 2. In the order of the Consolidation Officer that the share was distributed separately and thereafter, the entry was made in the khatauni which is not disputed by the respondents anywhere even before the revisional court. 15. The learned revisional court erred in totally ignoring the above facts as discussed in the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and has wrongly drawn an inference of it being an ancestral property merely on the basis of Shijra accepted by the petitioners. 16. The learned revisional court also erred in observing that the father of respondent no. 2 may not have objected to the entries made in khatauni 1359 fasli by some mistake and since the respondent no. 2 then was minor would not be affected by that. It is sheer presumption by the learned revisional court to say that by mistake the father of the respondent no. 2 may not have raised any objection then. The fact remains that the khatauni of 1359 fasli in favour of the petitioners was never challenged before and continued for a long time. There is nothing on the record to show as to what was the age of respondent no. 2 during first round of consolidation and in case, he was minor when he had attained majority. The learned revisional court raised all kind of presumptions and drawn inferences in favour of the revisionist i.e. respondent no. 2. 17. In view of the facts, circumstances and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. 18. The impugned revisional order dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ayodhya in Revision No. 424/2014530423000029 (Hari Prasad v. Ram Chet) is hereby quashed.