Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Brajesh Shukla for the petitioners. Supplementary Affidavit, filed by the petitioners is taken on record. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 23.8.2002, dismissing objection of Rameshwar Prasad (now represented by the petitioners), Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.10.2005, and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 4.9.2014, dismissing the appeal and revision of Rameshwar Prasad, in proceeding under section 9 -A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of land of khata 136 of village Kui, tahsil Mau, district Chitrakoot. In basic consolidation record, names of the petitioners, respondents -4 to 7 and Rameshwar Prasad were recorded over the land in dispute. Rameshwar Prasad filed an objection (registered as Case No. 319/2001 -2002) under section 9 -A of the Act, for deleting the names of respondents 4 to 6 from the land in dispute and declaring his share as 1/2 in it. It has been stated that the land in dispute was ancestral property of the parties coming from the time of Duniapati, who had four sons namely Shyam Sunder, Ram Kanhai, Rameshwar Prasad and Ramanand. Apart from the land in dispute, the parties were also having ancestral properties in villages Chhibo, Piperiamafi, Sikari and Ramnagar. In family settlement, Shyam Sunder was given properties of village Ramnagar. Sons of Shyam Sunder were residing there and was not taking care of Shyam Sunder. Shyam Sunder was living along with his brother Rameshwar Prasad at village Chhibo, who was looking after him, in his old age, and had also incurred huge amount in the treatment of Shyam Sunder. Due to services rendered by Rameshwar Prasad, Shyam Sunder executed a Will dated 5.7.1968, by which he had given his share in the land of villages, Kui, Chhibo, Piperiamafi and Sikari to Rameshwar Prasad. Ambika Prasad and others (respondents -4 to 6) through their guardian Smt. Ramadevi contested the objection of Rameshwar Prasad and denied execution of any Will by Shyam Sunder in favour of Rameshwar Prasad. It has been stated by the respondents that Shyam Sunder had not executed any will in favour of Rameshwar Prasad. Shyam Sunder died on 17.10.1967 and after his death, names of respondents -4 to 6 were mutated over the land in dispute and other properties of Shyam Sunder. In the year 1991, Rameshwar Prasad mala fide filed suits under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, claiming his right over the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession, which was abated under section 5(2) of the Act. Now, in consolidation, they filed objection on the basis of Will dated 5.7.1968, which was a fabricated document and has been procured after death of Shyam Sunder. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners, apart from documentary evidence, examined Smt. Raj Kishori (attesting witness), Ram Surat, Sunder Lal and Rameshwar Prasad as witnesses. The respondents, apart from documentary evidence examined, Smt. Deokali (attesting witness), Indra Narain, Awadhesh Prasad and Ambika Prasad, witnesses. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 23.8.2002 held that Deokali, one of the attesting witness of the Will had denied her thumb impression on the Will, who was an educated lady and used to make signatures. From the extract of Pariwar Register, filed by the respondents, it was proved that on the date of the will dated 5.7.1968, Shyam Sunder was dead. Shyam Sunder was having three sons who were also having interest in the ancestral properties and could not be deprived from it. Although Shyam Sunder died in the year 1967 but Rameshwar Prasad did not make any effort for getting his name mutated over his properties, while the names of the respondents were mutated and no objection was raised by him. The Will was executed on a stamp paper of British period. The properties of village Ramnagar, was obtained by wife of Shyam Sunder, from her father and allegation that Shyam Sunder was given it, in family settlement was incorrect. On these findings the objection of Rameshwar Prasad was dismissed. Rameshwar Prasad filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 522/947) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 27.10.2005, affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. Rameshwar Prasad filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1 of 2005) against the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 4.12.2008, held that the genuineness of the extract of Pariwar Register, filed by the respondents ought to have been verified by Consolidation Officer from the original Pariwar Register but it was not verified. Findings, in respect of the date of death of Shyam Sunder was not properly recorded. On these findings, he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh.
(3.) THE respondents filed a writ petition (registered as Writ -B No. 5260 of 2009) against the aforesaid order, which was allowed by judgment dated 26.7.2011 and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision of revision on merit. This Court found that Rameshwar Prasad filed two suits in the year 1991 in respect of the land in dispute under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on the basis of adverse possession without disclosing the alleged Will dated 5.7.1968 executed by Shyam Sunder, in his favour, which is highly suspicious circumstance to ignore the Will. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally allowed the revision without considering the findings recorded by two Courts below. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation summoned the original Pariwar Register and after hearing the parties, by order dated 4.9.2014 found that date of death of Shyam Sunder, mentioned in Pariwar Register was fabricated, which was mentioned as 17.10.1968. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.;