IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that rights recognized by statute could be settled through conciliation, and a compromise would not be valid if it violated the provisions of the U.P.C.H. Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Krishna Kumar Dubey, learned Counsel for the side opposite.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (in short 'SOC') passed in Appeal No. 797/1866/1737 (Rajeshwari Devi Versus Nandini Devi), as also the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ayodhya (in short 'DDC') in Revision No. 859 (Nandini Devi Versus Rajeshwari Devi).

3. Brief facts of the case, are to the effect that the land in dispute i.e. Gata No. 76 (new number 66) situated at Village-Moradabad, Tehsil-Rudauli, District-Faizabad now Ayodhya, was recorded in the name of one Bhagwan Bux Singh. The Bhagwan Bux Singh expired on 04.12.1991, thereafter the name of his wife namely Rajeshwari Devi (opposite party no.3) was recorded in the revenue records in terms of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950') as applicable at relevant point of time. Section 171 of the Act of 1950, applicable at relevant point of time reads as under:-

"[171. General order of succession -

Subject to the provisions of Section 169, when a bhumidhar [**] or asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below-

(a) the male lineal descendant in the line of descent in equal shares per strips:

Provided first that, the son of a pre-deceased son how low-so-over shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the predeceased son, had he been alive:

Provided secondly that, subject to the provisions of the first proviso, the share of a predeceased male lineal descendant will devolve upon his widow who has not remarried, and

Provided thirdly that if no male lineal descendant in male line of descent is alive the inheritance shall be governed by clause (b);

(b) widow and widowed mother and widow of a pre-deceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not remarried:

Provided first that co-widows will together get one share, and

Provided secondly that the widow of a nearer descendant will exclude that of a remoter one in the same branch;

(c) [Deleted.]

(d) father;

(e) [Deleted.]

(ee) unmarried daughter;

(f) brother, being the son of the same father as the deceased;

(ff) unmarried sister;

(g) married daughter;

(h) daughter's son;

(i) brother's son, the brother having been son of the same father as the deceased;

(j) father's father;

(k) father's mother, who has not remarried;

(1) son's daughter;

(m) married sister;

(n) half-sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased;

(o) sister's son;

(00) half-sister's son, the sister having been the daughter of the same father as the deceased;

(p) brother's son's son;

(q) father's father's son ;

(r) father's father's son's son.]"

4. After the aforesaid, during consolidation proceedings, the petitioner namely Smt. Nandini Devi wife of Devendra Kumar Singh daughter of (Bhagwan Bux Singh and Rajeshwari Devi) raised her claim over the property in dispute i.e. Gata No. 76 (new number 66), detailed above.

5. It would be apt to indicate that the claim of the petitioner before the authorities under the Act of 1953 as also before this Court is based upon the unregistered 'Will' dated 03.12.1991.

6. During the consolidation proceedings in a chak, Appeal No. 1418 of 2023 (Munni Devi Versus Bhagwan Bux Singh and Others), the statement(s) of attesting witnesse(s) of 'Will' dated 03.12.1991 were recorded and based upon the same the petitioner (Smt. Nandini Devi) and opposite party no. 3 (Rajeshwari Devi) were substituted in place of Bhagwan Bux Singh (died during the pendency of appeal on 04.12.1991) and a compromise was also filed in the said appeal and therefore appellate authority namely SOC, referred the matter to Assistant Consolidation Officer concerned.

7. The copies of the statement(s) of attest