The legitimacy of property rights hinges on lawful succession and adherence to consolidation laws; deeds executed without proper ownership are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 namely Smt. Ramapti has inadvertently been mentioned as a party while she had already expired and accordingly the petitioners may be permitted to carry out necessary correction in the array of parties.

2. Learned Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh for the Gaon Sabha submit that they have no objections in case C.M.A No.Nil dated 4.2.2025 is allowed.

3. This Court finds that the said application is merely formal in nature and does not impact the merits of the case and accordingly the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out the necessary amendment, forthwith.

4. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha.

5. Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur dated 30.3.2024 whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed as a consequence the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Conso0lidation dated 1.1.2009 as well as the judgement and order dated 31.7.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer (V), Kadipur, Sultanpur has been upheld.

6. For the sake of convenience, the court is referring to the parties as were originally impleaded before the Consolidation authorities.

7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute relates to Khata No.495, 496, 101 and 436 which were recorded in the basic year in name of Ram Achraj, Ram Kumar @ Tiddi and Smt. Kulwanta. Upon the commencement of consolidation operations in village Milkipur, District Sultanpur, several set of objections under Section 9 -A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "U.P.C.H.Act, 1953" were filed.

8. Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj had filed their objections on the ground that the property belonged to Ram Prasad and upon his death, it was succeeded by his wife Smt. Bhagwanta. Upon her death, the property ought to revert back to the heirs of the last male decedents and would come in the hands of Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj. It was also stated that Kulwanta who claimed to be the daughter of Bhagwanta was not quite correct inasmuch as Kulwanta was the daughter of Bhagwanta not with Ram Prasad but of Bhagwanta and Sukhdeo.

9. Thus the crux of the objections of Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj was that they denied Kulwanta to be the daughter of Bhagwanta and Ram Prasad and as such she would not inherit and the property would vest with Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj.

10. Kulwanta also contested the proceedings and her case was that after the death of Ram Prasad, the property was succeeded by Bhagwanta and after the death of Bhagwanta, it vested with Kashi who was taken in adoption by Smt. Bhagwanta as her son. After the death of Kashi, the property came to be recorded in the name of Kulwanta who had applied for a Bhumidhari Sanad which was issued on 23.1.1970 and thus, having complete rights in the property in question, she sold her share in the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 16.12.1965. Accordingly, Gaya Deen, Sita Ram, Nankau, Ram Shak and Ram Ujagar claimed their rights on the basis of the sale deed executed by Smt. Kulwanta in their favour in the year 1965.

11. A