RAMAPATI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ghanshyam Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing coun- sel for State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 4 and filed vakalatnama. The same is taken on record.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged order dtd. 8/5/2025 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Ayodhya) in revision preferred by opposite party No. 4 which has been allowed. It has been submitted that the entire dispute has arisen on an application for mutation preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Land Holding Act was preferred by the petitioner on death of his predecessor in interest Kamta Prasad who was the recorded tenure holder of the land situated at Khata No. 11 of Village Beebipur and Khata Nos. 22 and 268 of Village Fatehpurkamacin. It has been submitted that Kamta Prasad died issueless on 3/11/1988-And the petitioner being sister of Kamta Prasad moved an application for recording her name in the revenue records. In the said proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Bikapur, District Faizabad objections were filed by opposite party No. 4 stating that Kamta Prasad had executed an unregistered Will in his favour on 25/10/1988 on the basis of which name of Gaya Prasad was recorded in the revenue records. Before the Consolidation Officer opposite party No. 4 was able to prove the will dtd. 25/10/1988 in as much as the witness to the said will Ram Achhaiber had testified in his favour along with the scribe Ganesh Dutt Mishra and the Consolidation Officer accordingly was of the view that mutation in this regard pertaining to unregistered will and proved the same having been executed by Kamta Prasad and consequently directed the land to be recorded in the name of Gaya Prasad and rejected the application of the petitioner by means of order dtd. 23/10/2018.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 23/10/2018 filed appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who after examining the entire material on record and more specifically the evidence adduced by respondent No. 4 in favour of unregistered will, was of the view that there was serious discrepancy in the statement of the witness of the will namely Ram Achchaiber Verma in as much as he had testified that deceased Kamta Prasad had put thumb impression on the said will while in fact on examination of the said will it was found to have been signed by Kamta Prasad and accordingly found that there were serious in consistencies and discrepancies involved to the validity of the will dtd. 25/10/1988-And consequently was of the view that opposite party No. 4 would not succeed to the said land on the basis of the unregistered Will deed and accordingly allowed the appeal and directed the land be recorded in the name of the petitioner. It is in aforesaid circumstances that opposite party No. 4 had filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of C. H. Act and the revisional court by means of the impugned order has again revisited the entire facts as canvassed by the parties including the evidence adduced before the authorities and was of the view that there were substantial material adduced by opposite party No. 4 in favour of unregistered Will which has been executed by Kamta Prasad in favour of Gaya Prasad and accordingly held that the will was valid and hence would devolve on the basis of the unregistered will rather than by succession and accordingly allowed the appeal setting aside the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation dtd. 5/3/2022 and restored the order of Consolidation Officer dtd. 23/10/2018.