Property inheritance claims based on will versus statutory succession are to be thoroughly assessed, considering criminal convictions affecting rights under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5/1 and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to chak Nos. 280 and 340 situated in Village Sarai Mishrani, District Varanasi chak No. 318 situated in Village Rajputani, District Varanasi chak No. 359 situated in Village Jakhawan, District Varanasi. The plots of aforementioned chak was recorded in the name of one Ramjeet. After the death of Ramjeet, his widow Smt. Sahodara was recorded over the plot in question. There was no male or female issue from the wedlock of Ramjeet and Smt. Sahodara. Petitioners are sons of Smt. Sahodara's brother- Kanhaia Lal Tiwari. Smt. Sahodara alleged to have executed of will deed on 11.8.1975 in favour of petitioners. Respondent no.4- Maya is the cousin of deceased Ramjeet and respondent no.5- Adinath is the son of Gaya Prasad who is real brother of Maya. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were convicted under Sections 302 / 34, 326/ 34, 323/ 34, 324/34 IPC for the murder of Smt. Sahodara vide judgement dated 12.6.1976. Criminal appeal filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5 was allowed by this Court acquitting the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the aforementioned criminal case. Petitioners filed an application under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as U.P.C.H. Act for mutation of their name in place of Smt. Sahodara on the basis of will deed dated 11.8.1975. The aforementioned application of the petitioners was registered under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act. Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.12.1975 directed to record the name of petitioners on the basis of will deed executed in his favour in place of deceased- Sahodara widow of Ramjeet. Against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.1975, respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal under Section 11 of U.P.C.H. Act along with the prayer for condonation of delay before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Mirzapur and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.8.1977 setting aside the order dated 27.12.1975 and remitted the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties. Against the appellate order dated 24.8.1977, petitioners filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 30.10.1979. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the learned Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the order of the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.10.1979.

(ii) To issue any such other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. This Court entertained the matter on 29.1.1980 and interim protection was granted to the effect that chak of the petitioner carved out shall not be disturbed until it has already been disturbed in pursuance of the order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation.

4. In pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 29.1.1980, parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' objection under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been allowed by Consolidation Officer to record their name on the basis of will deed executed by Smt. Sahodara in their favour. He submitted that time ba