AWDESH KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, for respondent no. 5.

(2.) One Ramhit was recorded as Class-IX holder of the plots in dispute between the petitioners and the respondents. Ramhit had six sons, namely, Purshottam, Rishidev, Mewa, Badai, Kanta and Paltu. The petitioners are the sons of Rishidev. Kalpnath, Motichand and Jawahir are the sons of Purshottam. During the consolidation proceedings in the village, a dispute arose between the heirs of Ramhit regarding the share of the parties in the disputed plots. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 5.1.1987 passed in Appeal Nos. 519/1334/1608/1609 filed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') held that all the six sons of Ramhit had 1/6 share each in the disputed plots. Aggrieved by the order dated 5.1.1987 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kalpnath and his brothers (who are the sons of Purshottam) filed Revision No. 28/33/2013-14 under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau. The claim of Kalpnath and others was that the disputed plots were acquired by them and not by Ramhit but the said claim had been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation by his order dated 5.1.1987. During the pendency of the aforesaid revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, i.e., revisional court, Kanta and Paltu died and respondent no. 5 was substituted in revision as the heir of Kanta and Paltu on the basis of alleged Wills dated 11.11.2005 allegedly executed by them in favour of respondent no. 5. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau vide his order dated 30.9.2014 dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners have no grievance against the order dated 5.1.1987 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation whereby all the sons of Ramhit were held to have 1/6 share each in the disputed plots. The only grievance of the petitioners is that in his order dated 30.9.2014, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has held respondent no. 5 to be the heir of Kanta and Paltu and thereby wrongly deprived the petitioners from their share in the property of Kanta and Paltu.