JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. M.S. Tyagi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sonia Chawla, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this writ application, the petitioners being respondents before the District Dy. Director Consolidation/ Collector, Haridwar, has assailed the final order passed by the said court allowing the revision application under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity), setting aside the final order passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Haridwar, in Appeal No. 152 and remanding back the case to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly narrated as follows:-

The petitioners and respondent herein are the sisters born to Smt. Gommi, widow of late Shri Baldev. On her death, she left behind her agricultural lands in revenue village Raisi and village Habibpur Kuri and other properties, the petitioners claimed their rights in chak no. 99 and 100 of village Raisi and chak no. 147 of village Habibpur Kuri, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, on the basis of natural succession and inheritance. Their claim was resisted by the respondent on the basis of the will dated 03.11.1987, allegedly executed in her favour by Smt. Gommi. Before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, the petitioners and respondent filed a compromise application dated 15.02.1996, settling the dispute between them by giving half share to the respondent and half share to the petitioners and each one of the petitioners inherited ¼ of the properties.

The Consolidation Officer decided the aforesaid objections, filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, and decided the rights of the parties on the basis of succession by giving 1/3 share to each in the disputed property. Against such order an Appeal No. 812 was preferred before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Roorkee, Haridwar, with a prayer to decide the matter according to the compromise. However, subsequently, the respondent moved an application for amendment dated 09.09.1998, in the aforesaid appeal claiming her right on the basis of the will propounded by her. The appeal was allowed on 09.09.1998 by setting aside the order dated 06.02.1996, passed by the Consolidation Officer with a direction to him to decide the matter on its merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. So it was the order of remand to the court of the learned Consolidation Officer, Roorkee.

The proceeding was registered before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, as Suit No. 308 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, and, thereafter, both the parties adduced evidences before the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, and also relied upon the documentary evidence to prove their respective cases. The Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, vide order dated 25.08.2004 came to the conclusion that respondent was the owner of the Chak No. 99 and 100 of Village Raisi on the basis of the will propounded by her and the land of village Habibpur Kuri was succeeded by the petitioners and respondent on the basis of natural succession.

The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing Appeal No. 1019 of 2004 before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Haridwar, camp at Roorkee mainly on the grounds that the learned Consolidation Officer, Roorkee, has passed the order merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures totally ignoring the evidence available on record and has wrongly relied upon the evidences produced by the respondent. The petitioners claims that the will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and has not been properly proved by the respondent before the trial court, as the witnesses of the will could not prove it and the petitioners are in possession of their share in the disputed property and the alleged will is forged and concocted one. It is further alleged that the same has been p