Ram Pati v. Counsel

1. Heard Mr. Yadvendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 to 10, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act were initiated by Shyam Lal and others, which were registered as Case No. 45 of 2018-19 in respect to Khata No. 290, for recording the name of all four sons of deceased Ram Nath including legal heirs of Harilal in place of Ram Nath. Second set of claim was filed by petitioner Ram Pati wife of Jokhulal in respect to Chak No.166 on the basis of unregistered will dated 4.5.1990. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 03.11.2017 rejected the claim of the petitioner-Ram Pati. Accordingly, revision under Section 48(1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed, which was decided vide order dated

28.05.2018 and matter was remitted back before Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute afresh on merits. In pursuance of the order dated 28.05.2018, proceedings were started before Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated

29.08.2019, decided the dispute and directed to record the names of 2 WRIB No. 1037 of 2026 Jokhu Lal, Shyamlal, Mithai Lal, sons of Ram Nath, and Indra Bahadur, Jang Bahadur, Kehar Singh sons of Hari Lal as legal heirs in respect to Plot No. 84 situated in Village Gopalpur Laludih, Pargana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 29.08.2019, an appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act was filed, which was heard and dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated

10.03.2021. Revision under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by order dated 27.11.2025. Hence, this petition is for the following relief: passed "(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature impugned order dated of certiorari quashing the respondent 29.08.2019 No.3/Consolidation Officer, Sadar, District Prayagraj in Case No.45 of 2018-19 (Shyam Lal and others Versus Jokhu Lal), under Section 12 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and impugned order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/ Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Prayagraj in Appeal No. 0119 of 2019 (Ram Pati Versus Shyam Lal) under Section 11(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 as well as impugned order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, in Revision No. 0045 of 2021- District Prayagraj Computerized No. 2021530203000045 (Ram Pati Versus Shyam Lal), under Section 48(1) of U.P. C.H. Act, 1953 (Annexure No.2, 3 and 5 respectively to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing maintain the status quo over the land in dispute, situated at Village Gopalpur Urf Laludih, Pergana Nawabganj, Tehsil Soraon, District Prayagraj." the parties

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being daughter-in-law of deceased Ram Nath, claimed her right on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 4.5.1990 executed by Ram 3 WRIB No. 1037 of 2026 Nath in her favour. Consolidation Officer has rejected the claim of the petitioner without considering the will deed executed by Ram Nath in her favour in proper manner. He submitted that one of the marginal witness namely Ram Asarey has appeared and proved the will, as such claim of the petitioner cannot be refused by the Consolidation Officer. He submitted that appeal as well as revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed in arbitrary manner, as such the impugned order should be set aside and Consolidation Officer be directed to record the name of the petitioner on the basis of will deed dated 4.5.1990 in respect to plot nos.220 and 222. He submitted that in respect to other plots all the four sons of deceased-Ram Nath are recorded as such claim of the petitioner in respect to the two plots regarding registered will deed executed in her favour cannot be refused.

4. On the other hand, respondent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by all the three courts to the effect that will deed has not been proved according to the provisions contained under the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act as such the impugned orders do not require any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article of 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that Ram Asarey has not proved the will deed as required under the law, as such finding of fact has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that will deed has not been proved by the marginal witness of the will deed, in question. He submitted that all the four legal heirs of deceased Ram Nath have been ordered to be recorded over the plot in question, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer has 4 WRIB No. 1037 of 2026 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of will deed alleged to be executed on 4.5.1990 in favour of the petitioner in respect to plot nos.220 and 222. There is also no dispute about the fact that appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act and revision under section 48 (1) of U.P.C.H.Act filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

7. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by Consolidation officer will be relevant, which is as under:- न्यायालय चकबन्दी अिधकारी सदर प्रयागराज वाद संख्या 45 सन् 2018-19 श्यामलाल आिद बनाम जोखूलाल धारा जो०च०अ० ग्राम-गोपालपुर उफर् लालूडीह परगना-नवाबगंज, तहसील-सोरांव जनपद-प्रयागराज िनणर्य रामपित द्वारा अपंजीकृ त वसीयत टाइपशुदा िद० 04.05.1990 प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। िजसमें रामनाथ के साथ गवाह रामधन, रामआसरे सभी के िनशानी अंगूठा बनाये गये है। मसिवदाकतार् में आर०पी० िसह एडवोके ट तथा टाइपकतार् के हस्ताक्षर स्पष्ट नहीं है। जो अपठनीय है। वसीयत में ग्राम गोपालपुर की गाटा संख्या-220 रकबा 0.1879 हे0 व गाटा 222 रकबा 0.3065 हे0 पुत्रवधू रामपित पत्नी जोखूलाल का शेष आराजी में चारो पुत्रों का उत्तरािधकारी होने का तथ्य अंिकत है। िकन्तु कोई ऐसा साक्ष्य नहीं दािखल है िजससे स्पष्ट हो िक गाटा 220, 222, रामनाथ वसीयतकतार् के नाम अंिकत रहा है। नामान्तरण प्राथर्ना पत्र में वसीयत का कोई िदनांक नहीं दजर् है। जोखूलाल ने अपने बयान में कहा िक रामनाथ ने डेढ़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़ बीघा का वसीयत िकया था िकन्तु गाटा 220, 222 का योग 0.4944 हे0 होता है जो दो बीघा से ज्यादा है। इस प्रकार रामपित के पित के कथन तथा वसीयत के तथ्य अन्तर है। हािसया के गवाह रामआसरे ने वसीयत को प्रमािणत नहीं िकया है। गवाह का कथन है िक वसीयत कब िलखा गया, िकतनी जमीन का िलखा गया नहीं मालूम है। वसीयत पढ़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़़कर नहीं सुनाया गया। इस प्रकार अपंजीकृ त वसीयत िदनांक04.05.90 स्वयं में संिदग्ध हो जाती है। िजसके आधार पर रामपित को कोई अनुतोष नहीं प्रदान िकया जा सकता है। तद्नुसार रामपित का नामान्तरण प्राथर्ना पत्र स्वीकार योग्य नहीं है। रामनाथ मृतक के स्थान पर उनके वैधािनक वािरस उनके पुत्रगण तथा भतीजे होने के कारण श्यामलाल आिद का नामान्तरण प्राथर्ना पत्र स्वीकार योग्य है आदेश उपरोक्त िववेचनोपरान्त आदेश हुआ िक ग्राम-गोपालपुर उफर् लालूडीह की भूखण्ड संख्या 84 पर अंिकत जोखूलाल पुत्र रामनाथ का नाम बन्दोबस्त अिधकारी चकबन्दी के अपील संख्या-1980 धारा 11 (1) जो०च०अ०, ता०फै ० 26.09.05 के क्रम में िनरस्त िकया जाता है तथा उक्त 5 WRIB No. 1037 of 2026 आराजी पर अंिकत रामनाथ पुत्र भगवानदीन मृतक के स्थान पर जोखूलाल, श्यामलाल, िमठाईलाल पुत्रगण रामनाथ, इन्द्र बहादुर, जंगबहादुर के हर िसह पुत्रगण हरीलाल बतौर वािरस दजर् हो। पत्रावली बाद अमलदरामद दािखल दफ्तर हो। िदनांक- 29/8/2019 29-8-2019 (िमिथलेश कु मार) चकबन्दी अिधकारी सदर प्रयागराज

8. Perusal of the finding of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer fully demonstrate that will deed dated 4.5.1990 has not been proved as such the claim as set up by the petitioner for recording her name in respect to plot nos.220 and 222 cannot be allowed.

9. In view of the finding of fact of Consolidation Officer, which has been maintained in appeal and revision, there is no scope for interference against impugned orders passed by Consolidation authorities.

10. The writ petition is dismissed. April 20, 2026 PS* (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)