Rakesh Sharma, J.: - The matter relates to year 1985 as such it requires expeditious disposal.Heard. 2. Sri H.S.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appears for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent nos. 4 to 8 are represented by Sri Vinod Ku. Singh. 3. The subject matter in dispute was allocation of shares to the members of a joint family of cultivators of a village in respect to agricultural land situate in village Kusmaura, Tahsil Utraula, District Gonda. During consolidation operations the father of the petitioners and opposite parties no. 4 to 8 preferred objections against the proposed shares by the consolidation and revenue authorities. As per petitioner's counsel, the father of the petitioners was entitled to 5/9 shares in the property on the ground that he is entitled to be allotted 1/3 share of Jagannath and 1/9 of Smt. Pran Dei besides 1/9 of his own.On the other hand, the opposite parties had pleaded that father of petitioner was entitled to be allotted only 1/4 share in the disputed Khata. Three issues were framed by the Consolidation Officer. It was highlighted by the petitioner that the real brothers of Jagannath, Ghirrau and Somai were dead in the life time of Jagannath and the son of Jagannath. In this regard, averments made in Paragraph-8 are relevant, the same are being quoted below:- That the first contention from the side of the petitioners was that real brothers of Jagannath, Ghirram and Soman were dead in the life time of the said Jagannath and the son of Jagannath, namely Hardwar was also dead. Further more Jagannath after the death of his son Hardwar married his daughter-in-law (Hardwar's wife) with Sita Ram and executed a registered Will deed in favour of Sita Ram and bequested his entire property in favour of the father of the petitioners. 4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, Hardwar also died. After death of Haridwar his wife Ram Kalla was married to Sita Ram. Since this arrangement was made with the consent of Jagannath and other elders, a registered Will deed was also executed in favour of Sita Ram. The entire property of Jagannath was to be succeeded by the father of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the real brother of Sita Ram who was the father of the opposite parties no. Since this arrangement was made with the consent of Jagannath and other elders, a registered Will deed was also executed in favour of Sita Ram. The entire property of Jagannath was to be succeeded by the father of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the real brother of Sita Ram who was the father of the opposite parties no. 7 and 8 died prior to Badri and after the death of Badri's wife namely Pran Dei, the petitioners were entitled to be allocated 1/9 share more, held by Badri who was the real brother of the father of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioners became entitled to a share of 1/9 in accordance with their share in the ancestral property. The petitioners were therefore entitled to a share of 1/9 in accordance with their share in the ancestral property plus 1/3 share bequeathed by Jagannath and 1/9 share after the death of Smt Pran Dei. It was asserted that opposite parties 7 and 8 being the nephews of Badri and the father of the petitioners being his real brother was entitled to be allocated the aforesaid 1/9 share of Badri or his wife Pran Dei. 5. The opposite parties contested the case and they emphasized that they were entitled to 3/4 shares and rest of the share would go to petitioners' father. The name of the father of the petitioners had already been mutated in place of Jagannath as early as in 1357 firstly. The Tahsildar passed an order dated 13.9.1949. This fact finds place in the order passed by the Consolidation Authorities. The father of the petitioners was already recorded in place of deceased Jagannath vide order dated 13.9.1949 passed by Naib Tahsildar Utraula, Gonda. A true copy of the said order is being annexed herewith as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. 6. Much emphasis has been laid that the petitioners are continuing in cultivatory possession over the land uninterruptedly since 1949. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has ignored the registered Will executed in their favour on 13.11.1942. The Will was given effect to and entries were recorded in the revenue records. A specific order was passed by the Assistant Collector on 13.9.1949. The Consolidation Officer in his judgment and order dated 25 July, 1978 has wrongly partitioned the Khata ignoring the share. The Will was given effect to and entries were recorded in the revenue records. A specific order was passed by the Assistant Collector on 13.9.1949. The Consolidation Officer in his judgment and order dated 25 July, 1978 has wrongly partitioned the Khata ignoring the share. According to the petitioners, he has ignored that the share of Jagannath was already in possession and in the name of the father of the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer has not placed due reliance on the Will and concluded that Jagannath was not authorised to execute the Will in the year 1942 and the finding in respect of its validity has been recorded after about 36 years i.e. in 1978. This document has remained unchallenged. during this long period of time. The findings of the Consolidation Officer were affirmed by the S.O.C. and thereafter by the D.D.C. acting mechanically without application of mind to the controversy. There were two issues which were to be dealt with, availability of a duly registered Will of 1942 and the fact that Smt Ram Kalla had married Sita Ram father of the petitioners. This point has been excluded from consideration by all the three consolidation authorities. More-over the petitioners and their father have been continuously cultivating the land for last four decades. For the first time the challenge was made before the Consolidation Officer in the year 1978. 8. A counter affidavit is available in which the petitioner's submission had been denied. It has been urged that the Consolidation Officer, S.O.C. and D.D.C. have passed just and proper orders while deciding the shares of the contesting parties in the land in dispute. Late Jagannath had no right to execute the Will. 9. There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there existed an unchallenged registered Will of the year 1942. The father of the petitioners and other applicants were members of the same family brothers or cousins. The court s below have ignored the fact that even if the Will fails the share of Jagannath will be divided amongst his nephews namely Shiv Ram, Autar, Badri and Sita Ram. Under these circumstances the petitioners were entitled to 1/9 share in the ancestral property and 1/12th share due to the death of Jagannath. The court s below have ignored the fact that even if the Will fails the share of Jagannath will be divided amongst his nephews namely Shiv Ram, Autar, Badri and Sita Ram. Under these circumstances the petitioners were entitled to 1/9 share in the ancestral property and 1/12th share due to the death of Jagannath. The consolidation court had to scrutinize the matter in the light of the materials on record and seriously take into account all the issues brought before it for adjudication. Thus, the matter requires fresh appraisal and scrutiny in accordance with law. All the points raised in the writ petition have to be dealt with and decided in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 10. In view of above discussion the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.7.1978, 16.11.1978 and 20.8.1985 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation who is fully empowered, under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to deal with such matters. He, if feels necessary, may further relegate the matter to the concerned Consolidation Officer having jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. It is open for the parties to put forth their respective versions, lead evidence, oral or documentary in support of their respective cases. The case shall be dealt with and decided in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. The appropriate authorities shall deal with the matter independently with an open mind in accordance with law expeditiously. Till the disposal of the case, the status quo in respect of the land in dispute shall be maintained, which shall be subject to further order passed by the concerned Court.