SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Bhola Nath Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) The dispute in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises related to succession to the estate of one Alijaan. One Wahidan, i.e., the predecessor in interest of the petitioners claimed succession to Alijaan claiming to be his daughter. It is the admitted case of the petitioners and was the admitted case of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners that Miajaan was the son of Alijaan. The claim of Wahidan, i.e., the predecessor in interest of the petitioners was contested by the opposite parties alleging that Wahidan was not the daughter of Alijaan, but was the daughter of one Wali Ahmad and was, therefore, also not the sister of Miajaan. The claim of Wahidan was also denied by the opposite parties on the ground that even assuming that Wahidan was the daughter of Alijaan, she was not entitled to succeed to the estate of Alijaan as Miajaan, who initially succeeded to the estate of Alijaan after the death of Alijaan, died on 22.9.1954 and under Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') as it stood on 22.9.1954, the married sister of the tenure holder had no right of succession. The married sister got a right to succession to the estate of her brother only by amendment incorporated in Section 171 of the Act, 1950 w.e.f. 10.10.1954. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of Wahidan. However the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 16.3.2012 passed in Appeal No. 4/13/58 allowed the claim of Wahidan. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.2012, the opposite parties filed Revision Nos. 6/18/21 and 7/19/22 which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') vide his order dated 2.9.2016. The petitioners filed recall applications praying for recall of the order dated 2.9.2016 passed by the D.D.C. alleging that the said order was passed ex-parte against the petitioners. The D.D.C. vide his order dated 28.9.2018 dismissed the recall applications filed by the petitioners. The orders dated 2.9.2016 and 28.9.2018 passed by the D.D.C. have been challenged in the present writ petition.
(3.) From the records of the writ petition, it is evident that the claim of Wahidan was based on her contention that Ali Mohammad and Alijaan were the sons of one Chunna and she was the daughter of Alijaan. It is admitted that Miajaan was the son of Alijaan. The claim of the opposite parties was that Chunna had three sons Wali Ahmad, Ali Mohammad and Alijaan. It was alleged by the opposite parties that Wali Ahmad was married to Mulia and Wahidan was the daughter of Ali Mohammad and Mulia. The D.D.C. after considering the records of the case and the evidence filed by the opposite parties has held that Wahidan had not been able to prove that she was the daughter of Alijaan. The sale-deed produced by Wahidan which was allegedly executed by her cousin Mushtaq stating that she was the daughter of Alijaan has been disbelieved by the D.D.C. in his order dated 2.9.2016 on the ground that the said sale- deed had not been proved during the proceedings in the case by the marginal witnesses. It also appears from the records that in order to prove her claim that she was the daughter of Alijaan, Wahidan had produced one Salim as a witness, but the testimony of Salim has been rejected by the D.D.C. on the ground that Salim was not competent to testify about the paternity of Wahidan as he was much younger in age to Wahidan. For the aforesaid reasons, the D.D.C. has rejected the claim of Wahidan after recording a finding that Wahidan had not been able to prove that she was the daughter of Alijaan. The findings recorded by the D.D.C. on the paternity of Wahidan are findings of fact based on evidence on record and the Court finds no perversity in the aforesaid findings.;