Point of Law:
In sum and substance proceedings of mutation, correction of revenue entries or settlement of disputes as to entries or in annual registers as prescribed under Section 33 of the Act initiated or decided under Sections 34/35, 39, 40 and 54 of the Act are all summary in nature subject to determination of rights of the parties by the competent court of jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners who are the three sons of one Ali Baksh S/o Fakira challenging the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 31.05.2016 in two Revisions filed by respondent nos. 2 to 7 against the orders passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 06.05.2013 and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 26.08.2010.

2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of the controversy are as follows.

3. The dispute relates to Khata No. 13 situated in Village Kulha Ataura, Tehsil Hassan Ganj District Unnao. One Madari was the original tenure holder of five plots of land comprising Khata number 13, ad-measuring 1.804 hectare. Madari had two sons, Shukru and Fakira. Shukru died issue-less and his property devolved upon Fakira. Fakira had four sons namely Ali Baksh, Abdul Rahman, Mohammed Ali alias Buddha and Mulla. Mulla, having predeceased his father, was survived by his widow Rasoolan, arrayed as respondent no. 2 and a minor son Shamshad Ali, arrayed as respondent no. 6. Ali Baksh had three sons i.e. petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3. Similarly, Abdul Rahman had three sons Fazlur Rehman, Jamaluddin and Basheeruddin. After the death of Fakira, an entry under PA-11 was made by the Supervisor Kanungo on 19.02.1983 giving one fourth share of Khata no. 13 equally to four sons/heirs of Fakira, Mullah being survived by his minor son Shamshad through his mother as natural guardian. Later on, Ali Baksh filed an application for mutating his name in the revenue records to the extent of half share on the basis of an un-registered Will dated 25.01.1982. The Tehsildar Hasanganj after issuing notice and hearing all the parties concerned allowed the application for mutation made by Ali Baksh by his order dated 06.08.1991 and directed deletion of the entries made earlier in the revenue records through PA-11. The Tehsildar accepted the copy of the Will and directed that half share of Khata number 13 should be recorded in the name of Ali Baksh.

4. The order passed by the Tehsildar was challenged in the Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer Hasanganj by the respondent no. 2 on behalf of her minor son Shamshad. However, during the pendency of the Appeal a Notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued for the village concerned. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed as having abated under section 5(2) of the Act. On initiation of consolidation operations on 23.11.1991 in the village concerned, objections were filed by Rasoolan under section 9A-2 of the Act and also by Ali Baksh. In the objections filed by the respondent nos. 2 to 4, it was mentioned that the alleged Will was a forged document as no such Will had been made out by Fakira before his death.

5. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections filed by the respondents. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 26.08.2010 in a way partitioned Khata No. 13 allotting half share to the sons of Ali Baksh (now deceased) i.e. his three sons the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the remaining half was divided equally among opposite party nos. 2 to 6 to the extent of 1/6 each.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2010, the respondent nos. 2 to 6 filed an Appeal under section 11 of the Act. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the Appeal by his order dated 06.05.2013 after holding that Rasoolan had no right to file objections or to file the Appeal as the son of Mulla i.e. Shamshad was major and he should have filed the Appeal. Since the Will had been proved by the Tehsildar in his order dated 6.08.1991 and no proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the Will by the respondent nos. 2 to 6, there was no reason for not believing the Will dated 25.1.1982.

7. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 6.5.2013, two Revisions were filed i.e. Revision No. 705/2012-13 by respondent nos. 2 to 6 and Revision