SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. - (1.) List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) It appears from the records that one Sureman was the co-tenure holder of Khata No. 24 and 63. Orders dated 18.5.1971 and 19.5.1971 were passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.C.O.') in Case Nos. 1132 and 1244 wherein the respondents and their predecessors-in-interest were recorded as tenure holders of the disputed plots and the name of Sureman was deleted. The orders were passed ostensibly on the basis of some compromise. Against the orders dated 18.5.1971 and 19.5.1971 passed by the A.C.O. in Case Nos. 1132 and 1244, one Smt. Ramkali filed Appeal Nos. 1018 and 1021 under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') on the ground that the aforesaid orders were passed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 25-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1954'). In the said appeals Smt. Ramkali represented herself as the widow of Sureman. The said appeals were allowed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as, 'A.S.O.C.') vide his order dated 25.4.1986. The order dated 25.4.1986 passed by the A.S.O.C. was challenged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through Revision Nos. 418/18/35 and 418A/18/35 before the Chief Revenue Officer, Basti, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.R.O.'). In the aforesaid revisions Smt. Ramkali was impleaded as opposite party. During the pendency of the aforesaid revisions Smt. Ramkali died and the petitioner filed a substitution application praying to be substituted in place of Smt. Ramkali on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by Smt. Ramkali in favour of the petitioner. Simultaneously, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also filed a substitution application praying to be substituted in place of Smt. Ramkali on the ground that they belonged to the same family and also denied the execution of the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Ramkali in favour of the petitioner. It appears that in the proceedings relating to the substitution of the legal representatives of Smt. Ramkali, the original Will was not filed before the C.R.O. as the original Will had been submitted by the petitioner in mutation proceedings and only a photocopy of the Will was filed by the petitioner before the C.R.O. The C.R.O. vide his order dated 10.9.1993 dismissed the substitution application of the petitioner and substituted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in place of Ramkali. The said order was passed on the ground that as the petitioner had not filed the original copy of the Will allegedly executed by Smt. Ramkali in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the claim of the petitioner to be substituted as heir or legal representative of Ramkali could not be accepted and further in his order dated 10.9.1993 the C.R.O. has recorded a finding that Sureman had no wife by the name of Smt. Ramkali and Smt. Ramkali who had filed appeals claiming herself to be the widow of Sureman was not the wife/widow of Sureman. The order dated 10.9.1993 has been challenged in the present writ petition. ;