Applications for mutation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act after village denotification are void, and substitution based on an unproven Will is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Kuldeep, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mahendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent no.2.

2. This Court is pained to note that the matter was heard on 11.03.2024 and it was fixed for further hearing on 12.03.2024 only for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for both sides were unable to make any clear and cogent arguments. It was expected that they would come prepared on the next date but however even on the next date i.e. on 12.03.2024 both the learned counsel for the respective parties were absolutely ill prepared and could not answer the query of the Court. It is in the aforesaid circumstances when there was practically no assistance from the counsel for either sides that the Court had to reserve the judgment.

3. The instant petition had been filed by Smt. Jagrani alias Ram Jiyayi, daughter of Balbhadra assailing the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Srawashti dated 09.05.20219.

4. During the pendency of the instant petition, Smt. Jagrani was reported to have died and one Shyam Lal, son of Lakhan had moved an application seeking substitution, condonation of delay in moving an application for substitution and sought his impleadment in place of Smt. Jagrani on the basis of registered Will said to have been executed by Smt. Jagrani in his favour dated 24.09.2015. The said applications are bearing C.M. No.53887 of 2020 and 53888 of 2020. Objections were filed to the said application by the private respondent no.2 stating that since Shyam Lal was seeking his substitution on the basis of Will but he could not succeed to the estate of Smt. Jagrani as he was a murdere and he was involved in the murder of Bachowa (the original tenure holder) and thus the application was liable to be rejected and since there was no other heir except the private respondent no.2, who was the cousin brother of Bachowa, the petition deserves to be abated and could not be decided on merits.

5. This Court has perused the record meticulously and upon examination of the matter certain facts have unraveled which indicates that the instant petition involves certain peculiar facts and circumstances which has defined the course of the instant judgment.

6. Certain facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed first.

7. It is undisputed that the property in question was recorded in the name of Bachowa, son of Balbhadra. He had his property in two villages i.e. Plots No.290 and 208 relating to village Laxmanpur Bhagwanpur and village Dayali respectively. It is also not disputed that Bachowa was issuless and his wife had predeceased him. Smt. Jagrani (original petitioner of this petition) claims to be the real sister of Bachowa whereas the private respondent no.2 claims himself to be the cousin brother (son of the brother of Balbhadra).

8. The dispute for the first time erupted when Smt. Subhaga wife of Lakhan had claimed rights in the property of Bachowa on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.12.2000. Bachowa in his life time contested the said proceedings before the Consolidation Officer and by means of judgment dated 30.01.2006 the Consolidation Officer held that the sale deed upon which Smt. Subhaga was claiming rights was fraudulent and the same was set side and Bachowa was held to be the title holder. Smt. Subhaga challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which also came to be dismissed on 28.04.20216 as such the order of Consolidation Officer upholding title, rights and interests of Bachowa was confirmed.

9. Significantly the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the dispute raised by Smt. Subhaga was not assailed any further and the litigation came to an end at this stage.

10. The village of Laxmanpur Bhagwanpur and Dayali were denotified under section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on 31.03.2008. At this