S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Gulrez Khan, learned advocate in support of this petition and Sri Satya Prakash; learned ad­vocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) PROCEEDINGS are under section 9-A (2) of UPCH Act which is in respect to ad­judication of dispute of title/right between the parties. To appreciate claim of parties and then to take appropriate decision, in the light of findings so recorded, notice of the facts in brief will suffice.
(3.) WHEN the proceedings started, initially, dispute related to land comprised in Khata Nos. 4, 42 and 21 but as Sri Khan, learned Counsel submits that now dispute confines to the land comprised in Khata Nos. 4 and 42, this Court is to examine the same. Over the land which is in dispute in the present writ petition, as noted above, name of Ganga Devi wife of Hari Singh Thakur, was recorded. There happens to be an order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 13.11.1972, directing for exjunction of the name of Ganga Devi and for record­ing name of respondent No. 4 (Smt. Kala-wati) but in view of further development and proceedings as progressed, now we are to forget that as nobody pursue it. On 5.3.1973, an objection was filed by Risal Singh claiming succession after death of Ganga Devi, obviously under section 171 of UPZA&LR Act. Consolidation Officer re­jected objection. Appeal filed by respon­dents was allowed and the matter was re­manded, upon which the Consolidation Officer while taking fresh decision accepted Risal Singh to be successor/heir of deceased and claim of Kalawati was rejected. To challenge the judgment of Consolidation Officer, Kalawati and Nawal again came to the Appellate Court upon which, again the order of remand was passed. During pen­dency of matter before the Consolidation Officer on remand, Risal Singh and Nawal 'both died. Suraj Kali widow of Manraj claimed to succeed rights on account of Will dated 4.4.1973 which has not been ac­cepted by the Courts and there is no chal­lenge by that lady in respect to her rights now. Present petitioners claimed to succeed rights from Risal Singh on account of a registered Will dated 21.12.1974. Consoli­dation Officer by judgment dated 1.8.1977, gave certain directions in respect to land comprised in Khata No. 21. which we are now not to bother. So far as land of Khata Nos. 4 and 42 which is under scrutiny, name of respondent No. 4 was directed to be recorded in place of Gaga Devi. Two findings were given i.e. (i) Risal Singh was adopted in different family and thus has no right in the land in dispute (ii) land of Khata No. 21 was acquired by Ganga Devi and it was not ancestral. There were four appeals including that of petitioners and similarly on dismissal of appeal there were four revisions, including that of the peti­tioners and all were dismissed and thus, to challenge the orders of Deputy Director, Consolidation, appellate authority and that of the Consolidation Officer, petitioners have come up to this Court by means of present writ petition.;