JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.12.2022 whereby, the opposite party No.1- District Deputy Director of Consolidation on an application preferred by the private respondents directed that the document(s) i.e. "Will" dated 06.04.1978 and sale deed 05.04.1978 be sent to F.S.L. for expert opinion for the purpose of verification of genuineness of "thumb impression" of Ram Pyari over the "Will" in issue that.

3. On 09.01.2023, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties as also taking note of the relevant provisions of the relevant Act namely, section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short "Act of 1925") and section 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Act of 1872"), this Court passed the interim order. The same on the production reads as under:-

Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, which is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the private opposite parties.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by opposite party no. 1-District Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.D.C.)/ Collector Shrawasti, in Case No. 40 of 2022 Computer case No. D202208620000040 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record regarding the land/property in dispute i.e. Gata No. 218 situated at Village Madhwapur Pergana Tulsipur, District Shrawasti and Gata No. 131 situated at Village Babhuni, Pargana Tulsipur District Shrawasti.Thereafter, an application was moved for mutation on 25.11.1980. This application was based upon adoption deed dated 24.12.1976. This application for mutation was rejected on 21.12.1981 and being aggrieved by this order the applicant Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan filed an appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, which was also rejected on merits by Pargana Adhikari Bhinga, vide order dated 30.07.1983.

Both these orders were challenged by one Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan by means of revision filed before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal Faizabad now Ayodhaya.

It is further stated that during the pendency of the revision, the proceedings of Consolidation were initiated after notification under Section 4 of Holdings Act, 1953.

During the consolidation proceedings initiated under the Act of 1953, Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan filed the objection based upon the adoption deed and another objection based upon the will, was filed by the predecessor in interest Sri Pateshwari Prasad, Kasiram alias Niber and Nanku Prasad.The Consolidation Officer Bhinga, rejected the objections vide order dated 07.06.2019 on merits. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was also rejected on merits vide order dated 25.11.2021. Against these orders the revision was filed before Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, wherein the impugned order has been passed.

It is further stated that before the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, an application was moved by the revisionistprivate opposite parties herein, to verify the signatures of testator on the will, which as per the procedure prescribed under Evidence Act particularly Section 68 and 69 of the Act, the revisionist were failed to prove before the concerned