JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Tanu Roopanwal, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for contesting-respondents.

2. The facts, not under dispute are that one Ramdev, son of Shivtahal was sole 'Sirdar' of the land in dispute and has applied for a Bhumidari Sanad and deposited 20 times of rent on 4.6.1968 and on the same day has executed a registered gift deed to Smt Ishra Devi, wife of Ajab Narayan i.e. the petitioner herein.

3. It appears that later on a Bhumidhari Sanad was issued to Ramdev.

4. Case of the petitioner was that his wife Smt Ishra Devi lived along with him happily, but unfortunately died on 21.10.1974, leaving behind her husband i.e. the petitioner as her sole heir and legal representative. However, this fact has been disputed by respondent no.5, who claims herself to be Smt Ishra Devi, wife of the petitioner that she is alive and due to dispute with her husband, she is still staying along with one Ram Nath and have children also.

5. The petitioner was in jail for sometime due to a criminal case, wherein later on he was acquitted in trial. Meanwhile, Bhumidhari Sanad issued to Ramdev was challenged by one Prithavi Pal, respondent no.6 and his name was got recorded over the land in dispute, though apparently without any specific order.

6. The proceedings under Section 134 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 travelled up to the Board of Revenue which ultimately abated since village concerned was brought under consolidation operations and undisputedly in the Khatauni of basic year, name of Smt Ishra Devi, wife of petitioner was recorded as tenure holder.

7. During consolidation proceedings, petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of, 1953") inter-alia on the ground that since his wife Smt Ishra Devi expired on 1.10.1974 and he being her sole legal heir, therefore, his name be substituted in her place.

8. In the consolidation proceedings, statement of respondent no.5, Smt. Ishra Devi (alleged to be an impostor by the petitioner) was recorded.

9. The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim has filed about 21 documents and details thereof are referred in paragraph 12 of present writ petition as well as petitioner has examined himself and Chotte Lal, son of Ramjiyawan, whereas respondents have filed affidavits of witnesses.

10. The issue as to whether affidavits could be accepted without cross-examination of the deponent has travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition No.15115 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.7.2017, wherein it was observed that in case affidavits are sought to be relied upon, the petitioner would be afforded opportunity to cross-examine respective deponent of said affidavits.

11. The Consolidation Officer, after considering objection and material available on records, has rejected objections filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.12.2018. Relevant findings thereof are mentioned hereinafter:

^^eq0 bljk nsoh ds }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa ds lkFk muds c;ku rFkk ftjg dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA lE;d ijh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd bljk nsoh i<+h fy[kh tkx:d efgyk jgh rFkk vius i{k esa fgokukek fy[ks tkus ds lkFk gh vius vf/kdkjksa ds izfr ltx jghA muds }kjk Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd jkenso muds firk ds c