Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been taken up after 35 years of its institution. The writ petition was admitted on 22nd May, 1975 and all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were stayed.
(2.) NOTICES were issued to the Respondent No. 3 but it appears that neither the Respondent has turned up nor anybody has put in appearance for claiming any rights. The reason is simple as the impugned order itself records that Respondent No. 3 was issueless. Another issue was directed to be framed that why the property in question should not be vested in the Gaon Sabha.
(3.) THE challenge is to the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer - -Consolidation found favour with the Petitioners as they had successfully proved the Will executed in their favour by Pyare, the recorded tenure holder. There was a dispute as to whether the Respondent Smt. Dharma was the wife of Pyare or not. On this point the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that Smt. Dharma is not the wife of Pyare. He, therefore, carved out a new case that firstly a separate issue should be framed to find out as to whether Pyare was in a conscious state of mind at the time of execution of the Will or not, and the second issue should be framed as to whether the property would vest in the Gaon Sabha or not.;