Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri I.D. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the substituted petitioner, Sri R.R. Upadhya for the opposite parties and the learned Standing Counsel for quite some time. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.1985 as contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur and the order dated 15.11.2000 as contained in Annexure No. 6 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Raibareli camp at Sultanpur.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by these orders and he says that finding of the Consolidation Officer has been upset. The reasoning given in the judgment of the Consolidation Office has been rebutted by Settlement Officer Consolidation, against the judgment of this Court as well as finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer. He argues that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is unreasonable based on conjuncture and surmises and incorrect interpretation of the Statute like Indian Evidence Act, Indian Succession Act and the Transfer of Property Act. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one Badal died without any issue. The petitioner is claiming his right through will said to have been executed on 30.8.1962 while opposite parties are claiming their right on the basis of inheritance. The pedigree is not disputed. The dispute is with regard to Will.
(3.) IT so happened that after the death of Badal, opposite parties got their names entered in form P.A. 11 while, the petitioner filed suit under section of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.;