SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 29 -5 -1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and to modify the judgment dated 24 -11 -1979 and 2 -2 -1979 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer respectively.
(2.) THE brief facts for the purposes of the present writ petition are that the dispute relates to Chak Nos. 87 and 20 of village Hathika Pargana Akbarpur and Khata No. 57 of village Asvi Pargana Derapur. The Chak No. 87 was recorded in the name of Smt. Thakura Devi widow of Bharat Singh, whereas Chak No. 20 and Khata No. 57 were recorded in the names of the petitioners and contesting respondents. Smt. Thakura Devi died. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of the land situate in village Hathika and Aswi to mutate their names in the revenue papers by expunging the name of Smt. Thakura Devi as she had died and the property in dispute was ancestral one. The opposite party Nos. and 5 namely, Bhagwan Singh and Balbir Singh also filled application under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Act for recording their names on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Thakura Devi in their favour on 19 -4 -73. Both the contesting parties also filed objections under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for recording their names by expunging the name of Sri Thakura Devi in respect of land in village Asvi. The parties are related to each' other and to show their relationship the pedigree which is relevant for the present case is mentioned in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer, which is quoted below.
(3.) THE petitioners -contested the claim of the contesting respondents. They submitted that the property was Seer of their ancestors and after the death of their father Bharat, it devolved on the petitioner and his mother Smt. Takura Devi had no fight to inherit the property under the U.P. Tenancy Act, therefore, she had no right to execute the will in favour of the contesting respondents.;