JUDGMENT :

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties and Sri Umesh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the Caveators/ private opposite party Nos.4 to 7.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in Revision No.530 of 2017 (Savitri and another vs. Ram Dheeraj (Died) through his legal representatives and others) filed under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the order dated 04.07.2016, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda in Appeal No.769 of 2015-16 (Mst. Kalawati vs. Ram Dhani and others), filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 26.03.1981, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kshetra No.3, Utraula, District-Gonda in Suit No.140 of 1980 (Ram Dhani and others vs. Bhagauti and another), as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda in Revision No.530 of 2017 (Savitri and another vs. Ram Dheeraj (Died) through his legal representatives and others) filed under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the order dated 04.07.2016, passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda in Appeal No.769 of 2015-16 (Mst. Kalawati vs. Ram Dhani and others), filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the order dated 26.03.1981, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kshetra No.3, Utraula, District-Gonda in Suit No.140 of 1980 (Ram Dhani and others vs. Bhagauti and another), as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

The opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3 may further be commanded to make consequential entry in the name of petitioners in the concerned records of the land of Araji Chak No.268, Khata No.267/2 and 269 being legal heirs and daughters of late Bhagauti, who was recorded tenure holder of the aforesaid land."

3. The basic premise to assail the impugned orders is that the private opposite parties have filed an application dated 06.01.1981 before the court of Assistant Consolidation Officer seeking mutation on the basis of Will-Deed allegedly executed by one Sri Bhaughati on 28.11.1980, the original tenure holder of the property in question, without impleading the wife of late Bhagauti as a party of that case saying that she has died whereas she was alive and remained alive for quite long time thereafter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards an application dated 06.01.1981 (Annexure No.5) wherein it has been categorically indicated that the original tenure holder of the land in question, namely, Sri Bhagauti, has expired and in his life time he had executed a Will in favour of the private opposite parties. Sri Bhagauti was not having any son (male child) and his wife is also not alive. The applicants of that application/ the private opposite parties hereto have stated themselves as real cousin and since they were looking after Sri Bhagauti in his life time, therefore, Sri Bhaugauti has executed a Will-Deed in their favour. On the basis of the aforesaid application, the Consolidation Officer has directed for publication and the said publication was issued on 08.01.1981. As per the order dated 26.08.1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer, no objection has been filed on that publication. Therefore, after recording the evidence of marginal witness of the Will-Deed he directed that the name of private opposite parties be entered in the Chak in question i.e. Chak No.268, 267/2 and 269.

5.