Heard Sri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

1. The pedigree as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, which is necessary to understand the present controversy, is reproduced hereinunder:

Jalim

Buddhi Ved Ram

Gomti ( Widow)

Chandra Pal Madan Lal

Premwati Gangadei Jwala Devi Ramwati Nemkumari

w/o Rameshwar w/o Ramjelal w/o Deoraj w/o Balgovind w/o Dayal Lal

Raj Bahadur Surajpal Shivraj Asharam Horam Brijvasi

2. The petitioners are the nephews of late Ved Ram. The respondents herein are claiming their rights through Gomti widow of Ved Ram. The petitioners set up a Will said to have been executed and registered on 1st November 1991 by Ved Ram. They alleged that Ved Ram died on 2nd of November, 1991. The name of Gomti widow of Ved Ram came to be mutated in revenue records even prior to the consolidation operations on a report submitted by the Revenue Officials under PA- 11. However, the said mutation order is alleged to have been stayed. Gomti is said to have executed sale deeds on 10.01.1992 and 15.01.1992 in favour of the respondents 3 to 13. The petitioners claim to have filed Original Suit No. 47 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge for cancellation of the said sale deeds which is said to be pending.

3. The consolidation operations had set in under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and accordingly objections were filed by the petitioners claiming title over the disputed land on the basis of their registered Will dated 01.11.1991.

4. The matter proceeded and one Pratap Singh, said to be the attesting witness of the Will was produced and whose statement was recorded whereafter he was cross-examined. A copy of his statement is annexure 4 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 22.12.2009, allowed the objections filed by the petitioners accepting the statement of the attesting witness and held that the petitioners are entitled to succeed to the holding of Ved Ram.

5. It is relevant to note that in between an ex-parte order had been passed by the Consolidation Officer on 17.07.2003 which came to be recalled on 25.11.2003. The Consolidation Officer in a very cryptic manner while finally deciding the issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 recorded his conclusions, vide order dated 22.12.2009. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal against the said order. The Settlement Officer Consolidation after threadbare disclosing the statement of the attesting witness recorded categorical findings to the effect that the witness has failed to prove the Will as his statement was self contradictory, and that the second attesting witness Nain Sukh had not been produced who was reported to be dead. No other witness was produced to prove the execution of the Will. The scribe of the Will Ramesh Chandra Mishra was also not produced. The appellate court also entertained additional evidence in the shape of a death certificate indicating that Ved Ram had died on 2nd of April, 1991 and not on 2nd of November, 1991. Accordingly, he held that the death certificate which has been relied upon by the Consolidation Officer stands contradicted and the Will appears to have been forged and got prepared later on. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision which has also been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to advert to any of these findings and has simply passed an order of affirmance and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the death certificate which had been relied upon by the petitioners could not have been disbelieved on the basis of a subsequent death certificate filed at the appellate stage. He, therefore, contends that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is also erroneous on merits.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have contended before the Consolidation Officer that the