RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.P. Tewari, for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Vaish, for the contesting respondent -2.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.09.2014 passed in proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) THE dispute relates to inheritance of Chak No. 17, 69 and 104 of Dhanpal Singh and Omkar Singh of village Sarauri, pargana Satasi, district Budaun. After death of Dhanpal Singh and Omkar Singh, Krishna Pal Singh (the petitioner) filed an application (registered as Case No. 119) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating his name, over the land in dispute, claiming that Dhanpal Singh and Omkar Singh died issueless and he being their brother was their nearest heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. Rinkoo (respondent -2) through his guardian Smt. Ramwati, filed an application (registered as Case No. 120) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating his name over the land in dispute, in place of Omkar Singh claiming that he was minor son of Omkar Singh and his heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. Smt. Brahma Devi wife of Krishna Pal Singh filed an application (registered as Case No. 121) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating her name over the land in dispute in place of Omkar Singh, claiming that Omkar Singh had executed an unregistered will 13.07.2001 in her favour. Aforesaid cases were consolidated and tried together. Consolation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 17.03.2004 held that due execution of will dated 13.07.2001 was not proved. It was proved that Rinkoo was son of Omkar Singh as such he was his heir. The petitioner was heir of Dhanpal Singh. It has also been held that Smt. Ramawati, guardian of Rinkoo executed sale deed in respect of land of village Katgaon without obtaining permission from District Judge as such she was not fit for acting as guardian of minor. On these findings the application of Krishna Pal Singh was allowed in respect of the properties of Dhanpal Singh, application of Rinkoo was allowed in respect of properties of Omkar Singh and application of Smt. Brahma Devi was dismissed. Guardian of Rinkoo was changed and the Collector Budaun was appointed as guardian. Pushpendra (respondent -3) filed a highly time barred appeal on 13.08.2009 (registered as Appeal No. 18) from the aforesaid order and stated that for the land of village Katgaon, he, Rinkoo and Krishna Pal Singh were held as the heirs of Dhanpal Singh as such all the three persons were heir of Dhanpal Singh and their names be recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed another time barred appeal on 17.11.2011 (registered as Appeal No. 248) from the aforesaid order, challenging that Rinkoo was not son of Omkar Singh. Both the appeals were consolidated and decided by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 03.02.2012. He allowed the appeal of Pushpendra and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and held that Pushpendra, Krishna Pal Singh and Rinkoo had 1/3 share each in the land in dispute.;