(1.) Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for third, fourth and fifth respondents.
(2.) Petitioners are assailing the order dated 6 March 2013 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly (D.D.C.), whereby, the order of the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) and that of the appellate authority, Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.) has been reversed, thus, accepting the claim set up by the private respondents in respect of the disputed property. As a consequence, it has been directed that the name of the petitioners be expunged and that of the private respondents be entered in the revenue record.
(3.) The private respondents set up their claim on the strength of the registered Will, whereas, the petitioners set up their claim on the basis of an unregistered will alleged to have been executed by Pooran Lal on 26 April 1988. Before the C.O., both the sale-deeds, were brought on record. Fourth respondent appeared as a witness, evidence of the deed writer and Banwarilal, a villager, deposed on behalf of the private respondents. Evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners, however, the learned C.O. rejected the objection of the private respondents and accepted the unregistered will. Aggrieved, a restoration application was filed as the C.O. had proceeded ex-parte which was rejected. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the S.O.C. which was rejected. Finally, the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the impugned order reversing the order and judgment of the subordinate authorities.