JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioners on the one hand and the respondents no. 4 to 8 on the other hand, had purchased half share each of Plot No. 180 in dispute, by two separate sale deeds. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act for division of holdings, in. which a preliminary decree was drawn on 16.11.1999 and the final decree prepared on 21.3.2002. As per the said decree the total area of Plot No. 180 was shown as 2.3210 Hectares, which was distributed in two Kurras each measuring 1.1605 Hectares. Thereafter, in the proceedings for dakhal, the Revenue Inspector in his report dated 28.5.2004 had reported that there was a deficiency of 0.1692 Hectare land in Plot No. 180, meaning thereby that the land available for distribution amongst the two sets of parties was only 2.1518 Hectares. It was further found by the Revenue Inspector that the respondents were found in possession of 0.0099 Hectare lesser land than half share of total 2.3210 hectares land, where as the petitioners were found in possession of 0.1593 Hectare lesser land. The Revenue Inspector thus reported that if the demarcation of the land in possession of the respondents was reduced by 3.3 meters on one side, then both the parties would get equal share of land i.e. 1.0759 Hectares each of the total area available. On this report the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a two line order dated 19.6.2004 stating that since there was less land available, hence the half share of the total area of plot on record (not actual) be first given to the purchaser in whose favour the sale deed was executed earlier and the remaining to the second purchaser. The respondents undisputedly had purchased land earlier to that of the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which has been dismissed on 1.11.2004 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 19.6.2004 and 1.11.2004 passed by respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively, the petitioners have filed this writ petition claiming that the petitioners would be entitled to get half of the share of land which is actually available in Plot No. 180.
2. I have heard Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 4 to 8 and have perused the record. A statement was made by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondents do not wish to file a counter affidavit and hence this writ petition has been finally heard and is being disposed of at the admission stage.
3. In both the sale deeds, one in favour of the petitioners and the other in favour of the respondents no. 4 to 8, the area of land is described as measuring 4 Bighas, 11 Biswas and 15 1/2 Biswansis, which is half share of the recorded area of Plot No. 180. It is not the case of the parties that in the subsequent sale deed, which was executed in favour of the petitioners, it was mentioned that the remaining land after sale in favour of respondents no. 4 to 8, was being sold to the petitioners. It is also not the case of the respondents that they had demarcated their portion of land after the sale deed had been executed in their favour. It was only in the execution of the decree of the suit filed by the petitioners that the demarcation of the land was to be made and it was at this stage that it was found that there was deficiency of 0.1692 Hectare of land in the recorded area of the said Plot No. 180. In my view, the Revenue Inspector had rightly reported that since there was deficiency in the total area of Plot No. 180 which had been sold to both the parties in half share each, the boundary should be suitably modified so that both the parties get equal share of land. After the purchase of half share each of the plot no. 180, the petitioners, as well as the contesting respondents, had become co-sharers of the entire plot and till the partition was done, they remained co-sharers of every inch of land of the plot in question. Clearly, the intention of the vendor and the vendee in both the cases was that half of the plot was to be in the share of each of the two sets of purchasers. In my view, besides the requirement of law, even equity demands that the land should be distributed equally between the two sets of purchasers and consequently, the deficiency in land should also be shared by them equally.
4. As such, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court, directing that the share of the respondents, who had purchased the land earlier, should be first demarcated and then the remaining should be given to the petitioners, does not appear to be correct. The decree passed was in favour of both the parties and they were to get equal share of Plot No. 180. In the said decree, the share of both the parties was shown as 4 Bighas 11 Biswas and 15 1/2 Biswansis. As such, while executing the decree, in case if less land was found available, it should have been distributed equally, as had been reported by the Revenue Inspector in his report dated 28.5.2004.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the orders impugned in this writ petition deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders dated 19.6.2004 and 1.11.2004 passed by respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively, are quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.