B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) These two petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed against common order dated 13 -3 -1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3991 of 1975 has prayed for a (sic) Consolidation Authorities. In Writ Petition No. 7746 of 1975 the prayer is for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 13 -3 -75 and 20 -10 -74. As these petitions arise out of a common order, it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.
(2.) The facts of the case need not detain much. As regards the Writ Petition No. 7746 of 1975, in the basic year the plots in Khata Nos. 495, 183, 114, 487 and 379 were entered in the name of Salgoo, son of Sitlu. An objection was filed Under Sec. 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, by Amar Nath, Respondent No. 4, stating that he was the grand -son of Salgoo and was entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar over all the Khatas on the basis of a registered of Hori, predeceased (sic) son of Salgoo, recorded tenure holder, has re -married, she lost all the rights and was not entitled to be recorded as co -tenant.
(3.) The Petitioner, Smt. Munia, on the other hand filed another objection alleging that the will alleged to have been executed in favour of Respondent No. 4 was not genuine rather it was forged and fictitious. The testator Salgoo, the recorded tenure holder was not in sound disposing mind when he is alleged to have executed the will and no right accrued in favour of Respondent No. 4 who is the widow of Hori, the predeceased son of testator, she was entitled to be recorded over half share as co -tenant along with the Respondent No. 4. A short genealogical table is given below to appreciate the facts: Salgoo. | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | Purshottam Hori | =Smt. Munia (Widow) Amar Nath;