- (1.) RAJIV Sharma, J. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 31. 7. 1997 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi as also the order dated 22. 2. 1990 of Consolidation Officer, Bhairawan, District Hardoi, mainly on the ground that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order substituted his own findings, which is not permissible under law. Further, the findings re corded by him are perverse as he fell into error in not appreciating the materials on record and the conclusions arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in its correct prospective.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the opposite party No. 1 has committed manifest error of law in ousting the petitioners, who are the natural heirs of deceased Ram Harash and gave too much weight to the alleged Will of Ram Harsh, who was in paralysed condition and was not mentally fit to execute the Will. Moreover, in the Will no reasons had been assigned for the ouster of the natural heirs. It was also submitted that the petitioners are the sons of real sister of deceased Ram Harsh and in view of Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, they are legal heirs. Elaborating his arguments, the petitioners Counsel submitted that Ram Harash (deceased) son of Raghubar was recorded in Khata No. 83 as Bhumidhar in the basic year. In Khata No. 122, 11 and 120, Ram Harsh was recorded alongwith other co-sharers i. e. opposite parties Nos. 7 to 17. Ram Harash was unmarried and died on 9. 8. 1986. On 19. 10. 1986, names of the petitioners were recorded after the proceedings under Section 33 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. On commencement of the Consolidation proceedings, objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed in respect of all the aforesaid four Khatas by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6, namely, Shiv Shanker, Shri Kant and Virendra Dutta alias Lallan stating therein that Ram Harsh had executed a registered WILL dated 7. 8. 1986 and they were successors of Ram Harsh to the extent that Shiv Shanker Lal and Shri Kant would have half share and Virendra Dutt alias Lallan and Ramesh Chandra would have half share. In the present writ petition, the dispute is between the petitioners and opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 with regard to succession. According to the petitioners, opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 are remote collaterals of Ram Harsh and not the natural successors while the petitioners are the natural successors of deceased Ram Harsh and as such the property should have devolved upon them.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer, according to the petitioners, summarily decided the case without examining the entire evidence on record and allowed the objections. THE order dated 22. 3. 1990 was challenged in Appeal No. 770 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hardoi by the petitioner, who recorded a finding that the alleged registered WILL dated 7. 8. 1986 since had been produced by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6, therefore, the obligation to prove the WILL was on them. THE Settlement Officer, Consolidation while allowing the appeal by the order dated 26. 7. 1990 recorded a finding that opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 had admitted that the petitioners are real nephew [bhanja] of the deceased Ram Harsh yet the claim of the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 was based on alleged WILL dated 7. 8. 1986, which they have failed to prove beyond doubt and as such no right has accrued in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6. The order dated 26. 7. 199q was assailed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 6 in Revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the impugned order dated 31. 7. 1997 allowed the Revision without assigning any cogent reasons for upsetting the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Petitioner's contention is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation ordinarily should not have interfered with the findings of fact arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation when the view taken by him is reasonable and for arriving on this view, relevant materials were examined by him. In view of the proposition enumerated in Niranjan Umesh chandra Josi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 13 SCC 433.;