Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'). The dispute relates to Khatas No. 35 and 212 recorded in the name of the petitioners in the basic year. The pedigree of the parties as set up in the judgment of the Consolidation Authorities is as follows:
(2.) Respondents No. 4 to 6 filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act alleging therein that the land in dispute was acquired by Banwari. After death of Banwari, the land in dispute was inherited by his sons Dhukhi and Charittar. Dhukhi died during the life time of Charittar and after death of Charittar his widow Smt. Rajla inherited the property. The petitioners got a farzi will executed in their favour by Smt. Rajla and Dukhi. After coming to know of farzi will Smt. Rajla made another will in their favour and since then they are in possession over the disputed land. It was also pleaded in the objection that even otherwise they being daughter's sons of Smt. Rajla are her heirs and entitled to inherit the land in dispute. The objection filed by contesting respondents was contested by the petitioners by filing a counter objection alleging therein that Dukhi died after Charittar as such Rajla cannot be the heir of Charittar. It was also pleaded that the will was executed by Dukhi and Rajla in their favour and since Moti had died during the life time of Rajla as such the alleged will set up by the contesting respondents was forged and fabricated. It was further pleaded by the petitioners that the land in dispute was mortgaged by Smt. Rajla which was redeemed by Dhondhai, father of petitioner no. 3. It was also pleaded that Smt. Rajla executed a registered agreement dated 6.10.1932 and gave a Dastbardari to the petitioners. It was also pleaded that the contesting opposite parties filed a suit under Section 59/61, which was withdrawn, and title and possession of the petitioners were accepted by them.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 7.11.1977 rejected the objection of the opposite parties no. 4 to 6. The contesting respondents carried the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was also dismissed on 21.1.1980. The contesting respondents again carried the matter in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners approached this Court.;