Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) One Mangal and Sukad were real brothers and had half share in the property in dispute. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the contesting respondents) are sons of Mangal. Smt. Asha Devi was widow of Sukad and inherited his half share in the property in dispute. The petitioners are daughters and sons of one daughter of Smt. Asha Devi. Smt. Asha Devi died some time in 1980. The contesting respondents got an order passed from Naib Tahsildar on 15.4.1981 for recording their names over the share of Smt. Asha Devi. It appears the consolidation operation started subsequently and in the same petitioners filed objection claiming share of Smt. Asha Devi on the basis of registered Will dated 11.1.1978. The contesting respondent also filed their objection claiming share of Asha Devi on the basis of another registered Will dated 27.6.1979. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) condoned the delay in filing the objection and after considering the evidence on record allowed the claim of the petitioners on the basis of their Will dated 11.1.1978 on 15th March 1994. Only respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation (the SOC). This appeal was dismissed on 1.12.1997. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision which was allowed on 28.5.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the CO. to make fresh issues and after taking p the evidence to decide the case afresh, hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai, , counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. L Singh and S.K. Pundeer, counsels for the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents had filed their objections claiming their rights over the property left by Smt. Asha Devi on the basis of Will dated 26.7.1979 but they did not file this Will or the copy of the same. Parties adduced their evidence and thereafter the CO decided the case. This Will is alleged to be in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 but only one of the respondent namely, respondent No. 3 filed an appeal. In this appeal certified copy of Will was filed. The SOC after considering the evidence on record held that the Will in favour of the contesting respondents is surrounded by suspicious circumstances as it disinherit the real daughters of Smt. Asha Devi and disbelieved it. The Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) has allowed the revision and remanded the matter for re-decision. The DDC has not set aside this finding but allowed the revision and remanded the matter on the ground that SOC ought to have given opportunity to the contesting respondent to adduce evidence to prove it. There was no justification in giving fresh opportunity to the contesting respondents. They were party before the CO. They had filed their objections claiming rights on the basis of Will. They ought to have produced their evidence before the CO. They have not given any reason as to why they have not produced their evidence or the Will before the CO. In absence of any reason the DDC had no justification to give fresh opportunity to contesting respondent to fill up the lacuna. In view of this order of DDC dated 28.5.1999 is illegal and hereby quashed and the order of SOC dated 1.12.1997 is upheld.
(3.) With these observations the writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.;