SATTIDIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION HARDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 31. 7. 1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi as also the order dated 22. 2. 1990 of Consolidation Officer, Bhairawan, District Hardoi, mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order substituted his own findings, which is not permissible under law. Further, the findings re corded by him are perverse as he fell into error in not appreciating the materials on record and the conclusions arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in its correct prospective.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the opposite party No. 1 has committed manifest error of law in ousting the petitioners, who are the natural heirs of deceased Ram Harash and gave too much weight to the alleged Will of Ram Harsh, who was in paralysed condition and was not mentally fit to execute the Will. Moreover, in the Will no reasons had been assigned for the ouster of the natural heirs. It was also submitted that the petitioners are the sons of real sister of deceased Ram Harsh and in view of Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, they are legal heirs.

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer, according to the petitioners, summarily decided the case without examining the entire evidence on record and allowed the objections. THE order dated 22. 3. 1990 was challenged in Appeal No. 770 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi by the petitioner, who recorded a finding that the alleged registered WILL dated 7. 8. 1986 since had been produced by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6, therefore, the obligation to prove the WILL was on them. THE Settlement Officer, Consolidation while allowing the appeal by the order dated 26. 7. 1990 recorded a finding that opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 had admitted that the petitioners are real nephew [bhanja] of the deceased Ram Harsh yet the claim of the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 was based on alleged WILL dated 7. 8. 1986, which they have failed to prove beyond doubt and as such no right has accrued in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6.