JAIKARAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3, Mr. Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sher Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

(2.) With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the writ petition is being heard finally without inviting counter affidavit .

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that plot No. 144 area 1.1210 hectare and plot No. 243 area 1.3480 hectare of Khata No. 168 situated at village-Gadha Kalan, Pergana and Tehsil-Puranpur, District-Pilibhit was recorded in the name of Lekhraj son of Kehar. Lekhraj had expired on 15/9/2004. Smt. Parvati Devi widow of Lekhraj also expired accordingly, petitioner filed an objection under Sec. -9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.C.H. Act") to record her name as there are no son and daughter from the wedlock of Lekhraj and Smt. Parvati Devi. Respondent No. 3/ Har Narayan alias Madho Ram filed his counter objection stating that Lekhraj during his lifetime had executed an unregistered Will-deed on 15/3/2004 in his favour, as such, respondent No. 3 is entitled to be recorded in the place of deceased Lekhraj. A sale deed is also alleged to be executed on 18/9/2004 by Lekhraj in favour of Umesh Kumar and Nitesh Kumar. A Civil Suit No. 152 of 2005 filed by respondent No. 3 for cancellation of sale-deed dtd. 18/9/2004 was decided vide judgment dtd. 31/5/2010 on the basis of compromise alleged to take place on 26/5/2010. In the title objection under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act, 14 issues were framed and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dtd. 29/7/2022 allowed the objection of petitioner and rejected the claim of respondent No. 3 setup on the basis of unregistered Will-deed dtd. 15/3/2004. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal under Sec. 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was heard and dismissed vide judgment dtd. 28/12/2022. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Sec. 48 of U.P.C.H. Act before Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order dtd. 28/12/2022 and 29/7/2022, the same was allowed vide judgment dtd. 23/1/2024 setting aside the orders dtd. 29/7/2022 and 28/12/2022 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of title objection, hence the writ petition for the following reliefs: