SUNEET KUMAR, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri R.B. Tripathi for the respondent nos. 4 to 13. By means of the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 7 December 2016 passed by the first respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gyanpur, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar 'Bhadohi', in revision No. 98/42 of 2016-17 under Section 48 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, arising from the order dated 2 February 1991 passed by the third respondent, Consolidation Officer in Case No. 257 of 1974 under Section 9A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act (Hriday Narayan and others v. Dulari and others).
(2.) The revisional authority has affirmed the orders passed by the subordinate consolidation authorities. The petitioners in respect of the disputed property had set up a case that they are transferee of the disputed plots from Mata Prasad and Lal Bahadur vide sale deed dated 23 May 1970 and 25 August 1970. Mata Prasad and Lal Bahadur are the nephew (Bhanje) of Ajmer and Kuber who were unmarried and died issue less, therefore, are entitled to succeed in terms of section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, petitioners being transferee were recorded in the revenue record pursuant to the sale deed executed by Mata Prasad.
(3.) It was further contended that Dulari is neither wife of Kuber and nor Majiya is daughter of Ajmer, therefore, the dispute primarily was between Mata Prasad, Dulari and Majiya as to who is entitled to succeed the disputed property which was recorded in the name of Kuber and Ajmer as co-owners.;