JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Bhushan and Shri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate, representing the petitioner and Shri Ram Bachan Yadav, Advocate, representing respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

2. The facts of the case are that one Mahulli was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Mahulli had two sons namely Narain Yadav and Bhagwati and two daughters namely Bisun Dei and Kisun Dei. Bhagwati and Kisun Dei died issueless. Petitioner is the daughter of Bisun Dei. Sonmati was the wife of Narain Yadav. After the death of Mahulli, the plots in dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises and which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'disputed plots', devolved on Narain Yadav. Narain Yadav died issueless on 30.11.1994. The aforesaid facts are not disputed between the parties. After the death of Narain Yadav, Sonmati, i.e., the widow of Narain Yadav, was recorded as the tenure holder of the disputed plots by an order passed in 1994 under section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1901') as she was the only surviving heir of Narain Yadav as provided under section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950'). The order passed by the concerned revenue officer resulting in mutation in favour of Sonmati was not challenged by the petitioner. The aforesaid facts have been recorded in the impugned order dated 13.9.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau, District-Mau, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') and also appear to be admitted in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition. Subsequently, the petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 1128 of 1997 in the Civil Court impleading Sonmati as defendant and for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant in the said case from interfering in the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the disputed plots and from preventing the petitioner to cultivate the plots. In the said case, the petitioner claimed that Narain Yadav had executed a Will in her favour. Sonmati died on 15.12.2003. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are the nephew of Sonmati claim that before her death, Sonmati had executed a Will dated 24.6.1998 bequeathing the disputed plots in their favour. On the basis of the said Will dated 24.6.1998, respondent Nos. 4 to 6 filed an application under section 34 of the Act, 1901 for mutation of their names in the revenue records in place of Sonmati and the said application was allowed by the concerned Tehsildar vide his order dated 12.4.2004. However, the names of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 could not get mutated in the revenue records as a result of the order dated 12.4.2004 because in the meantime a notification under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') was issued, and therefore, C.H. Form 5 prepare'4 during the consolidation operations reflected the name of Sonmati as the tenure holder of the disputed plots.

3. It has been stated in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition that Original Suit No. 1128 of 1997 had also been abated due to the notification under section 4 of the Act, 1953. However, the said fact stated in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition does not appear to be correct inasmuch as the photocopy of the plaint annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition shows that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have been impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the said case by some order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the concerned trial Court. However, the said fact is not relevant for deciding the present writ petition, and therefore, the Court is not expressing any final opinion on the correctness of the averments made in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition. After the notification under section 4 of the Act, 1953 and because the names of