Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, for the petitioner.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.10.2013 and Consolidation Officer dated 3.5.2010, passed in proceedings under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to the land of chaks 320, 748 and 1177 of village Kurhashahpur, pargana Ujhani, district Budaun. Chaks 320 and 748 were recorded, in the name of Mohkam son of Nekram and Chak 1177 was recorded in the name of Sipattar. The petitioner filed an objection (registered as Case No. 5 of 2009-10) under Section 12 of the Act, for recording his name as an heir of Mohkam and Sipattar, the recorded tenure holders. It has been stated by the petitioner that Mohkam was his real brother and Sipattar was his real uncle (father’s brother). Both of them died issue less. The petitioner was their nearest heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Thereafter, Mithlesh Babu (respondent-3) also filed an objection under Section 12 of the Act, for recording his name as an heir of Mohkam. It has been stated by respondent-3 that he was son of Mohkam, born to his legally wedded wife Smt. Maya. Sipattar died during life time of Mohkam, as issue less as such his share was jointly inherited by Jhandu and Mohkam. After death of Mohkam, he inherited his share. Both the objections were referred to the Consolidation Officer, where the parties filed written statements of the claims of each other. Subsequently one Objection was filed by Smt. Gango, mother of Mohkam, stating that Mohkam was unmarried and died issue less as such his interest was inherited by her, being his widowed mother.

4. All the objections were consolidated and tried together by Consolidation Officer (respondent-2). The petitioner examined Jhandu, Basoran, Rakshpal and Brijpal as witnesses. Mithlesh Babu examined himself, Satyapal and Thakuri as his witnesses and also filed documentary evidence. Gango examined herself and Raveran as her witnesses. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 3.5.2010, held that all the witnesses of the petitioner admitted that Mohkam was married to Smt. Maya. Even Gango admitted that Maya was living with Mohkam as his concubine. From the Voters’ List it was proved that Maya was wife of Mohkam. Satyapal and Thakuri proved that Mithlesh Babu was born to Maya, who was wife of Mohkam. From the school records and statement of the witnesses it was proved that Mithlesh Babu was son of Mohkam and Maya. Thus it was found proved that Mithlesh Babu was legitimate son of Mohkam as such name of Mithlesh Babu was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute as an heir of Mohkam.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 197) from the aforesaid order. Gango did not file any appeal. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Badaun, who by order dated 9.2.2011 held that although marriage of Mohkam to Maya was proved but as the school records filed by Mithlesh Babu was not proved by the competent authority and Maya, who was the best witness to prove that Mithlesh Babu was born to her during her wedlock with Mohkam, but she was not produced as such the Consolidation Officer committed an error in recording a finding that Mithlesh Babu was son of Mohkam. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer for giving opportunity to the parties to lead fresh evidence and decide afresh.

6. Mithlesh Babu filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 84/2013-14). The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1), who by order dated 9.10.2013 held that in the Voters’ List of 1992, the name of Maya was recorded as the wife of Mohkam. In the school records, date of birth of Mithlesh Babu was mentioned as 5.6.1994 and his father’s name was recorded as Mohkam and from the statements of Satyapal