JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Punit Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, plots of khata no.35, was recorded in the name of Jamuna Prasad, son of Govind. At the time of verification of the khatauni, Om Kumari and Krishnawati, being widows of Jamuna Prasad, were told to be recorded. During consolidation operation, Om Kumari and Krishnawati filed their objection that their name be recorded jointly over the plots of khata no.35. The Assistant Consolidation Officer on 2.3.1988 referred the matter before the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 15.3.1988, ordered to record the name of Om Kumari and Krishnawati jointly, being the widows of Late Jamuna Prasad and further ordered to expunge the name of Jamuna Prasad from the plots of khata no.35. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.3.1988, Naresh Pal and others have filed appeal along with prayer for condonation of delay before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) vide order dated 27.11.2004, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 15.3.1988 and ordered to record the names of Naresh Pal and Ved Pal, on the basis of unregistered will deed. Against the appellate order dated 27.11.2004, Om Kumari and Others filed revision being Revision No.247 and Surendra & Others have filed revision being Revision No.290 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned revisions were heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and vide order dated 25.1.2007, both the aforementioned revisions were allowed, setting aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 27.11.2004 and remanded the matter back before the appellate court to decide the appeal along with the pending appeal filed by Surendra. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 30.7.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by Surendra for want of evidence and appeal filed by Naresh Pal and Others were allowed, remanding the matter before the Consolidation Office to decide the dispute afresh on merit. Against the order of the appellate court dated 30.7.2008, Om Kumari has filed revision being Revision No. 203 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The aforementioned Revision No.203 was heard by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.3.2009, setting aside the orders dated 30.7.2008 and 27.11.2004 and ordered to record the names of Krishnawati and Om Kumari, being widows of Jamuna Prasad. One Kalawati filed restoration application against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.3.2009 and Revision No.173 against the orders dated 15.3.1988 and 7.3.2011, passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as 30.10.2012, passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, praying that her name be recorded being daughter of Jamuna Prasad. In the mutation proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Act, the Naib Tehsildar passed an order dated 23.4.2010 for recording the name of will holder, on the basis of registered will deed dated 2.2.1992, alleged to be executed by Om Kumari and Krishnawati in favour of Meena Kumari, wife of Mulayam Singh (daughter of Om Kumari). Against the order of mutation, appeal was filed which was allowed on 30.7.2010 and the matter was remanded back before the Naib Tehsildar. The Naib Tehsildar again on 30.4.2011, ordered to record the name of Meena Kumari, on the basis of registered will deed dated 2.2.1992. Krishnawati and Meena Kumari were alleged to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner (H.K.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd.) on 26.4.2010. Kalawati was alleged to execute the power of attorney in favour of Surendra Singh, son of Brahm Singh on 13.4.2011 which was later on cancell