K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Kshetriya Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi dated 31-5-1972 whereby the revision petition filed by the contesting opposite party No. 4 Ram Lakshman Pandey was allowed. The relationship between the contesting parties would be evident from the following pedigree:-(For Pedigree see next page)
(2.) The petitioners had filed an objection under Section 9-A sub-clause (2) of U. P. C. H. Act basing their claim on a registered will dated 6-5-1965 executed by their grand-father Harbansh Pandey in respect of 11 Bighas, 12 Biswas and 15 Dhoors. The claim of the petitioners was accepted by the Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 28-7-1971. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer the contesting opposite party Ram Lakshman Pandey had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 12-11-1971. Thereafter the contesting opposite party had preferred a revision petition which was allowed through the impugned judgment dated 31-5-1972 of the revisional court. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) In the basic year Harbansh Pandey was recorded over the disputed land. It appears that Munnanji Pandey father of the present petitioners had set up a will and had denied the claim of the contesting opposite party No. 4 Rain Lakshman Pandey. Similarly the petitioners had set up another will in their favour denying the claim of the contesting opposite party No. 4 Ram Lakshman Pandey as well as the claim of their father Munnanji Pandey, who is opposite party No. 45 in the present writ petition. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;