JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav 1. Sri Kant respondent no. 3 obtained a sale deed dated 26-10-72 from Ganga Parbat who was spiritual Guru recorded over the plot. On that basis he moved an application before the Consolidation Officer under section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (for short Act) during the consolidation operation and obtained an order for mutation over khata no. 10 situate in village Jamin Bhanauli Pargana Natthoo Tehsil Ghosi, district Azamgarh, without impleading the petitioner Mahendra Parbat. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 5-5-82 directed the mutation in the name of respondent no. 3 on the basis of a will (Annexure-2), impleading the petitioner, who was claiming to be a Chela of Sheo Nath parbat. The petitioner challenged the order dated 5-5-82 and moved a restoration application and substitution application stating that Sheo Nath Parbat died on 20-5-82 and the petitioner as Chela could not know about the proceedings, hence the ex-parte order was obtained by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-3). The restoration application is Annexure-4. That restoration application was rejected by order dated 9-9-87 (Annexure-5). Against that order a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by his order dated 28-6-88 dismissed the revision (Annexure-7). The present petition has been filed against these orders by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Sri Faujdar Rai appeared for the petitioner and SRI Sanjay Mishra appeared for respondent no. 3. There was a probate proceedings initiated by respondent no. 3 which was decided on 28-10-78 in favour of respondent on the basis of will dated 26-10-72. But later on the petitioner moved an application in those proceedings to recall that order as without serving any notice on him the order for probate has been obtained. After hearing the counsel for the parties the District Judge vide his order dated 25-3-83 allowed the application of petitioner and revoked the order dated 28-10-78. The probate proceedings, accordingly in respect of the land in dispute are still pending between the parties before the District Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's application has been allowed and the order dated 28-10-78 granting probate to respondent no. 3 has been revoked and those proceedings are pending, hence ex-parte order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5-5-82 could have been recalled or set aside by the consolidation officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's application has been allowed and the order dated 28-10-78 granting probate to respondent no. 3 has been revoked and those proceedings are pending, hence ex-parte order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5-5-82 could have been recalled or set aside by the consolidation officer. As the same was ex-parte and as the petitioner claiming to be a Chela of Sheo Nath Parbat who was Chela of Ganga Parbat, hence he was heir under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act for short ZA Act. The substitution application ought to have been allowed in his favour and the ex parte order ought to have been set aside. 4. Sri Sanjay Misra, appearing for respondent no. 3 on the other hand, urged that the petitioner being Chela cannot be treated to be a son who can be an heir under Section 171 of the ZA Act. It was also urged that Shiv Nath Parbat and Ganga Parbat were not the Guru of spiritual heir and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 5-5-82 allowing the mutation in the name of respondent no. 3 on the basis of will was perfectly correct and just, hence there was no justification for interference. Having heard learned counsel for the parties that as the petitioner's application under section 363 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the revocation of probate granted by the District Judge has been allowed and the order of probate dated 28-10-78 passed in Misc. Case No. 22/77 has been revoked. Those proceedings are pending. The validity of the will claimed by respondent no. 3 is also still sub-judice. Further the petitioner was claiming to be Chela of Shiv Nath Parbat who was held spiritual Guru. Sheo Nath Parbat himself was Chela of Ganga Parbat recorded tenure holder, who was alleged to have executed a will in favour of respondent no. 3. Consequently the petitioner claiming to be Chela becomes spiritual son and the Guru becomes spiritual father. 5. In Asharfi Lal v. Board of Revenue, 1972 RD 223, it has been held that Chela is like spiritual son of the Guru and as such he is legal heir and is entitled to succession of the land holdings of the Guru under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act. 6. 5. In Asharfi Lal v. Board of Revenue, 1972 RD 223, it has been held that Chela is like spiritual son of the Guru and as such he is legal heir and is entitled to succession of the land holdings of the Guru under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act. 6. In Sitaldas v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606 , the following observations may be noticed : "It is well known that entrance into a religious order generally operates as a civil death. The man who becomes an ascentic severs his connection with the members of his natural family and being adopted by his preceptor becomes, so to say, a spiritual son of the latter. The other disciples of his Guru are regarded as his brothers, while the co-disciples of his Guru are looked upon as uncles and in this way a spiritual famiiy is established on the analogy of a natural family." I am of the view that as the petitioner was claiming to be Chela of Sheo Nath Parbat and the letter was the Chela of Ganga Parbat, consequently the petitioner becomes spiritual son of spiritual father and was entitled to claim heirship under section 171 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The petitioner deserves to be substituted as the heir of Sheo Nath Parbat who himself was the spiritual son of Ganga Parbat. The Chela, in fact, is supposed under law to be the spiritual son of the spiritual Guru. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner being spiritual son of his Guru, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 20-6-88 and 5-5-82 are hereby quashed. The coasequence is that the Consolidation Officer shall decide the case afresh after taking evidence and making due allowance to the order passed in the probate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. --- Petition allowed.