SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one is present for respondent nos. 8 and 9. Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Rai, for respondent nos. 3 to 5.
(2.) In view of the office report dated 4.8.2014, service of notice on respondent nos. 6 and 7 is deemed sufficient. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7.
(3.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to the inheritance of the estate of one Narpat. Admittedly, the petitioner is the grandson of the brother of Narpat. In the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner also claimed that he was adopted by Narpat. The petitioner also claimed that Narpat had executed Wills dated 24.4.1960 and 9.7.1991 in his favour. One Hoshiyari claimed herself to be the daughter of Narpat. The petitioner denies that Hoshiyari was the daughter of Narpat. Before the consolidation courts, Hoshiyari also claimed that Narpat had executed a Will dated 18.1.1990 in his favour. Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the grandson of Hoshiyari and respondent no. 5 is the widowed daughter-in-law of Hoshiyari. Narpat died on 13.7.1991. During the consolidation operations in the village and after the death of Narpat, Case No. 3/08-09 was registered under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') in the court of Consolidation Officer on the objections filed by the petitioner and Hoshiyari. Hoshiyari could establish her right to inherit the estate of Narpat, only if she had been able to prove either that she was the daughter of Narpat or that Narpat had executed the Will dated 18.1.1990. In case, the Will dated 18.1.1990 was proved by Hoshiyari, her claim could be rejected by the consolidation authorities only if the Will dated 9.7.1991 had been proved by the petitioner. In case, the parties failed to prove the Wills dated 18.1.1990 and 9.7.1991 propounded by them, a finding on the relationship of the parties with Narpat as pleaded by them and on the Will dated 24.4.1960 was required because if, Hoshiyari had proved that she was the daughter of Narpat, she could be excluded from succession only by the Will dated 24.4.1960 or on the ground that petitioner was the adopted son of Narpat. In case, neither the Will dated 18.1.1990 nor the plea that Hoshiyari was the daughter of Narpat had been proved by Hoshiyari, the petitioner would inherit the estate of Narpat under Section 171(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') as it appears to be the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner is the grandson of the brother of Narpat. Apparently, the main controversy between the parties in the consolidation courts was regarding the Wills dated 18.1.1990 and 9.7.1991 and whether Hoshiyari was the daughter of Narpat. ;