Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar, for the petitioner and Sri R.C. Singh, alongwith Sri Ravindra Sharma, for the contesting respondents.

2. This petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 1.7.2006 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of basic consolidation year khata 98 of village Bagahi, Tappa Mail, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria, which was recorded in the names of Subhash and Suresh (respondents-2 and 3) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). Harish Chand (the petitioner) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 343/2348) under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording his name over it and deleting the names of the respondents. He claimed that Sachchan was bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Sachchan died on 8.10.1967, leaving behind him the petitioner as his only son and heir of the land in dispute. Since then the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of Sachchan. Taking advantage of minority of the petitioner and illiteracy of his widow mother, the respondents got their names mutated over the land in dispute, on the basis of a fabricated sale-deed dated 9.10.1967. The petitioner, through his guardian, filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 452 of 1968) on 27.3.1968, for cancellation of the sale-deed, before Civil Court, which was abated by order dated 7.5.1971, under Section 5 of the Act. The objection was contested by the respondents and they have stated that the sale-deed of the land in dispute was executed by Sachchan on 9.10.1967 in their favour. One Brij Kishore Maurya, who is Panchayat Secretary of the village, got this objection filed through his sister-in-law Prem Sundari, impersonating herself as Smt. Gulaichi and her minor son Harish Chand. Although, Smt. Gulaichi was not wife of Sachchan, nor Harish Chand was son of Sachchan.

4. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 27.11.1978 held that Sachchan died on 8.10.1967, and, sale-deed dated 9.10.1967 is fabricated document. He further found that Smt. Gulaichi was not the widow of Sachchan, nor Harish Chand was the son of Sachchan. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of the petitioner, directed for deleting the names of the respondents and recording the land in dispute in the name of Gaon Sabha. Harish Chand filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1/1/13) and the respondents filed another appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2/2/14) from the order of Consolidation Officer. Before Appellate Court, both the parties were allowed to lead their additional evidence. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 10.3.2005 affirmed the finding of Consolidation Officer that Sachchan died on 8.10.1967. He held that sale-deed dated 9.10.1967 was executed by some imposter and not by Sachchan. He also relied upon statement and report of Sri M.M. Kakkar, Fingerprint and Hand Writing Expert and found that thumb impressions of Sachchan in the Register No. 8 of sale-deed dated 9.10.1967 were not tallying with admitted thumb impressions of Sachchan on the sale-deeds dated 31.3.1959 and 3.3.1964, previously executed by him. So far as Smt. Gulaichi, the mother of the petitioner is concerned, he relied upon Kutumb Register, Electoral Roll of the year 1968-1969 as well as oral evidence of the petitioner and found that Smt. Gulaichi was widow of Sachchan and Harish Chand was his son. On these findings, he allowed the appeal of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal of the respondents and directed for recording the name of the petitioner over land in dispute.

5. The respondents filed two separate revisions and Gaon Sabha filed one revision against the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. All the three revisions were consolidated an