GAYATRI DEVI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K. Ajit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The parties do not dispute the following pedigree: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_457_ADJ5_2011Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) THE dispute in this petition relates to the agricultural holdings of Tamesar, who died issueless on 4th May, 1982. THE respondents' predecessor Kodai claims to have inherited the property through a registered Will, stated to have been executed by Tamesar in his favour in the year 1978 during his life time. THE petitioner is the daughter of Jhagru and Ram Singari. Ram Singari claimed succession to the property on the basis of an unregistered Will, which is alleged to have been executed by Tamesar on 29th April, 1982 just five days before his death. Testamentary succession to the agricultural land is a recognized mode of inheritance under Section 169 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950.

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer after giving full opportunity and after having fixed various dates ultimately proceeded to decide the objections almost after more than 12 years. THE matter went ex parte against the mother of the petitioner as she had failed to appear and adduce evidence. THE Consolidation Officer recorded that in the absence of any evidence being led by the petitioner's mother, the issue was answered against her and so far as the claim of the contesting respondents are concerned, the same was accepted on the basis of the evidence that was led by them.