Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioners who submits that the findings on fact as well as law are all erroneous, inasmuch as, there is a total non -consideration of the impact of Section 18 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and even on facts the trial court did not record any finding that the father of the Petitioners was not a citizen of India.
(2.) THE contention raised is that the law of succession would govern the issue and the Petitioners have every right to succeed to the property of their late father. The background of the case is that admittedly the Petitioners' father did go to the Pakistan after partition and in Paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has also been stated that the father of the Petitioners Gulam Jilani went to Pakistan during the life time of Faiyaz Ali the grandfather of the Petitioners. Faiyaz Ali was the last recorded tenure holder and after his death, during consolidation operations, the name of his sons including the father of the Petitioners came to be entered in the revenue records. However, it appears that on account of the departure of the Petitioners' father to Pakistan, his name was scored out and the custodian enemy property was entered into the revenue records along with other co sharers .
(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, their father died in 1994. In the year 1996, the Naib Tehsildar of the area concerned, called upon the Petitioners to vacate the land as it was entered as an enemy property and then the Petitioners woke up to contest the matter. Nonetheless, ultimately the Petitioners in the year 2002, filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, seeking declaration of their rights on the ground that they have succeeded to the estate of the deceased father by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.;