AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to have succeeded through a registered will to the share of one Chheddi @ Shiv Devi. The dispute was with regard to the share of the said lady, who claimed herself to be the wife of Chandra Bhan. Chandra Bhan was one of the three sons of late Ram Sanehi having an equal share in the holdings of Ram Sanehi along with his brothers Bhagwat Prasad @ Lalu and Mangal Prasad, who are respondent nos, 2 and 3 herein. Chandra Bhan is stated to have died during the life time of his father Ram Sanehi. It is the contention of the respondents that Shiv Devi was the wife of Chandra Bhan but Chheddi @ Shiv Devi, is not the wife/widow of late Chandra Bhan. The Consolidation Officer before whom the objections were filed believed the case set up by Chheddi @ Shiv Devi and directed that the name of Ram Sanehi be expunged and the name of his heirs including Bhagvat Prasad, Mangal Prasad and Chheddi should be entered as the heirs of Ram Sanehi. Being aggrieved, the contesting respondents filed an appeal. The appellate authority recorded his conclusions without giving any cogent reasons and affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. In revision filed by the contesting respondents, the said order has been reversed and the order of the Consolidation Officer has also been set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh.
(3.) SRI P. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of reversal is erroneous inasmuch as, the Deputy Director of Consolidation without adverting to the main issue of the identity of the wife of late Chandra Bhan has proceeded to carve out a new case and remanded the matter for examining the validity of the registered will, set up by the petitioner after the death of Chheddi @ Shiv Devi. He, therefore, contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has misdirected himself and hence the order impugned deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the order of the Consolidation Officer takes into account the entire evidence on record and as such there was no occasion to set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer.;