Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) With the consent of the parties counsel the petition is being disposed of.
(2.) Mohar Ali was recorded in the basic year as bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Two sets of objections were filed under section 9(A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer-one by Smt. Maimuna mother of Mohar Ali and the other by respondent No. 2 Ruab Ali. Smt. Maimuna claims on the basis of inheritance being mother of Mohar Ali. Respondent No. 2 claims on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Mohar Ali on 30.4.1978. The Will was disputed by Smt. Maimuna. Subsequently Smt. Maimuna transferred the property to the petitioner Asir Ali and Khatir Ali. The case of respondent No. 2 was that Smt. Maimuna had remarried and consequently had no right in the plots in dispute.
(3.) It was held by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 22.8.1978 that the will in favour of respondent No. 2 was not proved and one attesting witness Murtaza had turned hostile and the other Sanu Khan had died. Remarriage of Maimuna was not believed. On appeal, filed by respondent No. 2, the Settlement Officer Consolidation of affirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the respondent No. 2 filed revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 6.8.2002 allowed the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded any finding on the question of remarriage by Smt. Maimuna, as he has allowed the revision by reversing the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer regarding the will and has held that the will has been proved.;