Rakesh Sharma, J.: - Heard Shri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 and Shri Shafiq Mirza for the respondent no.3. This writ petition has come up for admission today and ex-parte interim order was granted by this court and the private respondents have sought vacation of ex-parte interim order and have insisted that the writ petition may be heard and disposed of at the admission stage. Counter and Rejoinder Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.05.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and the order dated 13.08.1985 passed by Consolidation Officer, Gonda. In the present case only the appellate authority i.e. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has recorded findings in favour of the petitioners. Rest of the Consolidation Authorities have dismissed the claim set up by the petitioners. 3. The dispute relates to title for the agricultural land situate in village Ujjaini Kala, Tehsil and District Gonda. For convenience the pedigree of family of Kadir Baksha is quoted below:- Kadir Baksha Habibur Rahman (two marriage) Kalsumnisha Nazbun Nisha (Earlier married with Abdul Sameed.. During their wedlock, respondent no.3, Abdul Ahad was born) After death of Sri Abdul Samad, Nazbun Nisha was married with Habibur Rahman. Subhan 4 sons Bankey Kabban Jhingai Shahid 4. The above pedigree has been denied by the opposite party no.3. According to him, following shall be the pedigree as far as sons of Kalsumnisha are concerned. Subhan had died issueless leaving no heirs/sons. Kalsumnisha (died issueless) Safiq Subhan (died issueless) 5. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the tenure holder Habibur Rahman, who had died in the year 1958 had performed two marriages. One with Kalsumnisha and the other with Nazbun Nisha. The petitioners claim that Subhan had four sons and Bankey was one of the four sons of Subhan although this has been denied by opposite no.3 by giving a different pedigree. It has been alleged that behaviour of Habibur Rahman and step-mother Nazbun Nisha was not proper with him and under these circumstances he left his native place and started living at Bombay (Mumbai). He was pursuing the small business in Bombay. It has been alleged that behaviour of Habibur Rahman and step-mother Nazbun Nisha was not proper with him and under these circumstances he left his native place and started living at Bombay (Mumbai). He was pursuing the small business in Bombay. In the basic year, the land was recorded in the name of petitioners' ancestors and dispute had arisen after the death of Habibur Rahman, grand father of the petitioners i.e. in the year 1958. The Consolidation Proceedings commenced in the village and opposite party no.3 i.e. Abdul Ahad claiming himself to be son of Habibur Rahman and his second wife Nazbun Nisha filed objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9A(2) of U.P. C.H. Act. He has claimed his right in the land in dispute on the basis of a will and also as a legal heirs of Habibur Rehman. The name of Abdul Ahad was recorded as tenure holder on the basis of a will. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.8.1985, the petitioners' father late Subhan had filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gonda. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant Subhan had died. The petitioner Bankey and his brothers sought substitution in his place. The application was allowed by the S.O.C. after taking note of the objections filed by the opposite party no.3 and others. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 19.7.2002 after affording opportunity of hearing to the rival parties. The opposite party no.3 had filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The petitioners have reiterated his submissions, which were placed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the memo of appeal. The Deputy Director of Consolidation without considering the facts and circumstances as well as evidence led by the petitioners had allowed the revision giving cause of action to the petitioners to file this petition. The arguments of petitioners were not appreciated properly. The claim of the Abdul Ahad, respondent no.3 was allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision on following grounds. a) Sri Subhan was never presented himself before the consolidation authorities and contested the case through his mukhtare-am. b) After the death of late Habibur Rahman in 1958, no claim was made by Sri Subhan. The claim of the Abdul Ahad, respondent no.3 was allowed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision on following grounds. a) Sri Subhan was never presented himself before the consolidation authorities and contested the case through his mukhtare-am. b) After the death of late Habibur Rahman in 1958, no claim was made by Sri Subhan. c) The entries which were made in the Parivar Register as well as Kutumb Register, relates to House no.791 is 1st Jan. d) In the family register relates to house no.357 which was made available by the respondent no.3 in that name of Bankey S/o Sri Bhallu & Jhingai S/o Adil is mentioned. 6. In the light of the above points, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Subhan was living at Bombay and had executed a Mukhtare-am (Power of Attorney) and appointed Shri Gallu and Sri Niyaz Ahmad as Mukhtare-am. They were representing the case of Subhan before the Consolidation Courts. During the pendency of the appeal, he had died and petitioner and his brothers substituted as legal heirs/legal representatives. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has excluded from consideration the evidence and statement given by the villagers like Ram Awadh, Aditya Prakash, Sri Narain and Binda. According to them, Subhan came to village on several occasions (however, the Consolidation Courts have held that he never presented himself in the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities). It is also contended that Subhan was patient of hypertension, paralysis etc. Medical certificate were submitted before the Consolidation Courts to indicate the reasons, which prevented him to appear in the court. The petitioners' counsel has placed detailed submissions as has been put-forth in para 12 and 13 of the writ petition. According to him, he has raised objections on the locus standi of Shri Abdul Ahad itself. Series of doubts were raised regarding his status and signature also. 7. Shri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on various grounds that various material facts have been concealed by the opposite party no.3 from the Deputy Director of Consolidation in preventing the revision. The evidence led by the petitioner that Shri Subhan had died earlier during the pendency of the appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The version of the respondent no.3 and others was taken into account ignoring the statements presented by the petitioners. The evidence led by the petitioner that Shri Subhan had died earlier during the pendency of the appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The version of the respondent no.3 and others was taken into account ignoring the statements presented by the petitioners. Several decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court and this court have been cited to submit that it was incumbent upon the Consolidation Authorities to have appreciate the arguments as well as the evidence put-forth by the party i.e. petitioners. The petitioners' version have been ignored. The proper procedure was not followed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The two will executed in favour of opposite party no.3 in the year 1946 and 11.12.1979 were not valid documents. Nazbun Nisha, second wife was not empowered to execute the will. Under the Mohandam law, the will has to be scrutinised in the light of the provisions of the ''Mohandam Law' and a Mohandams cannot by Will dispose of more than a third of the surplus of his estate. The elements of a valid will in the light of the principles of Mohandam law have been highlighted. Shri Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited various decisions in support of his submissions, which are as follows:- 1)1898-QB 340 2)1924-PC 253, 1970-Supreme Court 3)1976 2 SCC Page 58, 1989 3 SCC 293 4)1894 AC 347, 1946 FR 529 5)1941 Oudh 25 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the court to the detailed judgment rendered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 22.5.2006. At the outset he has denied the pedigree given by the petitioners. The pedigree as demonstrated by the petitioners is false, incorrect, fabricated, manufactured with illegal motive. Bankey, Kabban, Jhingai and Shahid are not sons of Subhan infact Kulsumnisha, fist wife of Habibur Rahman had two sons namely Safi and Subhan and Safi was died issueless and Subhan was also issueless and he was died on the basis of civil death and there was only Nazmulnisha who was legal heir of Habibur Rahman. In support of his submissions, the papers issued by the Election Officer on 7.9.1988 were produced. This clearly indicate that petitioners no.1 and 2 were not sons of Subhan. In fact, these persons want to usurp the property of widow Nazmulnisha, wife of Habibur Rahman. In support of his submissions, the papers issued by the Election Officer on 7.9.1988 were produced. This clearly indicate that petitioners no.1 and 2 were not sons of Subhan. In fact, these persons want to usurp the property of widow Nazmulnisha, wife of Habibur Rahman. Learned counsel for the respondents has made categorical statement by drawing attention of the court to various documents that petitioner Bankey is the son of Bhallu, Kabban is the son of Kallu, Jhingai is the son of Adeel and Shahid is the son of Shakirur Rahman and the petitioner no.2 has moved an application for bail in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Gonda in case crime no.8/92 under Sections 147, 323, 506, 553/504 IPC, Police Station Rehra Bazar, District Gonda. Even the police officers have taken the said parentage of these accused persons. Subhan had left the village and his whereabouts were not known. It was not clear whether he was in Bombay or in some other city. The name of the petitioners were never recorded in Khata No.20, 304/1, 584 and 585. The petitioners are failed to establish themselves to be sons of Subhan. Subhan was issueless and few years after the death of his father nobody knows where he had disappeared. The presumption of Civil death has been rightly drawn by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the present case. 9. No question arises of Subhan for filing an appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 13.8.1985. It is noteworthy that Subhan never appeared in person before the court of S.O.C. and D.D.C throughout the pendency of the case. The petitioners father were pursuing the litigation claiming themselves to be power of attorney holders of Subhan whose whereabouts were not known to anyone in the village. As per the petitioners' counsel even after the death of Subhan's father Habibur Rahman he did not appear before the Revenue Courts to claim his title or interest in the agricultural land left behind by his father. It is only when the consolidation proceedings commenced, petitioners and their well-wishers appeared on the scene and started claiming that they are sons of Subhan and as such they may be given agricultural land left behind the tenure holder Habibur Rahman. It is only when the consolidation proceedings commenced, petitioners and their well-wishers appeared on the scene and started claiming that they are sons of Subhan and as such they may be given agricultural land left behind the tenure holder Habibur Rahman. Substitutions applications were moved and the same were illegally allowed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation without confirming the whereabouts of the persons claiming themselves to be son of Subhan. The petitioners had infact played fraud on the consolidation courts only with the illegal motive to usurp the property. They have not come up with clean hands before this court also. The S.O.C. has committed error in not considering these facts and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has undone the wrong by writing a detailed, well considered judgment. The petitioners in fact have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition. Attention of the court was drawn to the bail application, extract of electoral roll, bail bonds, statement of Mohd. Shakeel son of Abdul Kaleem, maternal uncle of Subhan. The maternal uncle, retired police constable was 85 years old and had stated that Subhan had disappeared in the year 1925 and he was not in communication with his family members. Subhan was illiterate and could not put his signature. Mohd. Saqeel was infact brother of Habibur Rahman. He had made statement regarding his real nephew, own sister's son. He has further stated that after death of Kulsumnisha, his first sister, his brother-in-law Habibur Rahman had re-married with Nazbun Nisha. After his death his agricultural land was managed by his second wife Nazbun Nisha. She was in possession over the land in dispute. Any reasonable person could infer from the statement of real maternal uncle of deceased Shaqeel and Subhan, who appears to be an uninterested witness retired police constable that Subhan's whereabouts were not known and the agricultural land left behind by Habibur Rahman was in a cultivatory possession of his second wife Nazbun Nisha. The opposite party no.3 was son of Nazbun Nisha, who was in possession over the land since 1958. 10. The petitioners had manufactured in their pleadings that Subhan was suffering from different kind of ailments in Bombay. The Doctor had not indicated the age and other details of their patient Subhan. Abdul Ahad, opposite party no.3 had always appeared before the court pursuing his case and instructing his counsel. 10. The petitioners had manufactured in their pleadings that Subhan was suffering from different kind of ailments in Bombay. The Doctor had not indicated the age and other details of their patient Subhan. Abdul Ahad, opposite party no.3 had always appeared before the court pursuing his case and instructing his counsel. The questionnaire dated 15.5.2006 is a suspicious document. The property was infact mutated in the name of Nazbun Nishah and being a tenure holder she executed a will in favour of Abdul Ahad in favour of opposite party no3. in the year 1979. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to the rejoinder affidavit filed by him. 12. Shri Shafiq Mirza has placed reliance upon catena of decisions to submit that it was a burden of the petitioners to establish that they had title over the land in dispute. In the present case, the petitioners who were infact not sons of Subhan, who had disappeared in the year 1925 shall have to prove how they are connected with the land in dispute and the original tenure holder and the LHs/LRs of late Habibur Rahman. 13. Shri Shafiq Mirza, learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted on the strength of decisions reported in, 2004 (97) RD 338 2008 (25) LCD 1515, 2007 (25) LCD 72, 2009 (27) and LCD 167 to submit that the persons not available nor seen for several years, the burden lies on him or the persons claiming themselves to be LRs/LHs that he was alive during the proceedings pending before the Consolidation and Revenue Authorities. The provisions of Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are specifically clear in this regard. In the present case Shri Subhan had disappeared long before the death of his father Habibur Rahman had died. The petitioners have no locus standi to maintain this writ petition and has placed reliance upon several judgments referred to above. Subhan had to come to court to say that he was alive. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and also the judgments rendered by the courts below. 15. The dispute between the parties relate to the property left behind by Habibur Rahman, who had two wives namely Kalsum Nisha and Nazbul Nisah. The petitioners claimed themselves to be sons of Subhan, born from Kalsumnisha . 15. The dispute between the parties relate to the property left behind by Habibur Rahman, who had two wives namely Kalsum Nisha and Nazbul Nisah. The petitioners claimed themselves to be sons of Subhan, born from Kalsumnisha . The other widow Nazbun Nisah had one son Abdul Ahad. It has been alleged that Abdul Ahad was born from her first husband Abdul Sameed, however, after the death of Abdul Sameed, Nazbul Nisah remarried and lived with her son Abdul Ahad with Habibur Rahman, her second husband. Abdul Ahad became member of the family of Habibur Rahman. He was brought up by his parents Habibur Rahman and Nazbul Nisah. After the death of Habibur Rahman in the year 1958, the name of second wife Nazbun Nisah was brought on record, entries were made in the revenue records. It was indicated that Subhan son of Habibur Rahman from his first wife had already left his home for unknown place and it was a case of civil death. The other son Shafeeq had already died issueless. Thus, as per the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it emerges that when Habibur Rahman died in the year 1958, Nazbun Nisha, his second wife was alive and the land in dispute was recorded in his name as tenure holder in place of late Habibur Rahman. They remained silent for some years. It has been brought on record that Subhan had left his native village in Gonda in the year 1925 much before the death of his father Habibur Rahman. After several years when consolidation proceedings commenced in the village, the petitioners filed objections before the Consolidation Officer staking their claim alleging themselves to be sons of above said Subhan. They had claimed to be Mukhtare-am of Subhan a kind of power-of-attoreny to contest the case before the Consolidation Authorities. The objections were filed by Subhan through some Mukhtare-am claiming there were in the property left behind by Habibur Rahman. The Trial Court had rejected the objections upheld the claim of Nazbun Nisha, second wife of tenure holder Habibur Rahman. After Nazbun Nisha the land was devolved on Abdul Ahad on the basis of a registered will executed by his mother Nazbun Nisha, tenure holder upto the level of Consolidation Officer. The respondent no.3 etc. The Trial Court had rejected the objections upheld the claim of Nazbun Nisha, second wife of tenure holder Habibur Rahman. After Nazbun Nisha the land was devolved on Abdul Ahad on the basis of a registered will executed by his mother Nazbun Nisha, tenure holder upto the level of Consolidation Officer. The respondent no.3 etc. have been treated tenure holders and rightful claimants have entitled in the agricultural land in dispute. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has reversed the findings and interestingly the appeal was filed by Mukhtae-am of Subhan. Thereafter, it was alleged that he had died and petitioners substituted themselves to be LRs/LHs of said Subhan. Interestingly, Revenue Authorities up to Additional Commissioner level while making entries in the revenue records Subhan was treated to have died. It was recorded as a civil death as the whereabouts of Subhan were not known after the year 1925. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has accepted the claim of the petitioners and allowed the appeal. 16. Abdul Ahad etc. filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of C.H.Act under the provisions of Consolidation Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given well considered, detailed findings looking into the question of facts and law as well. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had declined to accept the claim of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has disbelieved the story manufactured by the petitioners. Abdul Ahad has been held to be a tenure holder of the entire land left behind by Habibur Rahman in the disputed khata. This court has noted that earlier the possession was with Nazbun Nisah, mother of Abdul Ahad, opposite party no.3. He has remained in possession through out the Consolidation courts. As per the learned counsel for the parties, some disturbance has occurred on the sites by virtue of the interim order passed by the court on 14.7.2006. 17. In the present case detailed findings have been recorded by the C.O. and the D.D.C. after taking into account the oral and documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer had framed 18 issues and each and every issue was dealt with in the light of the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record. The C.O. which has a role like Trial Court has carefully considered the versions of the rival parties and decided the case against the petitioners. The Consolidation Officer had framed 18 issues and each and every issue was dealt with in the light of the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record. The C.O. which has a role like Trial Court has carefully considered the versions of the rival parties and decided the case against the petitioners. Detailed reasoned and speaking order was passed by the C.O. as settling the controversy on facts. On appeal the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has written a judgment in just two pages while reversing the findings of Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has failed to record detailed reasons in a judgment as to why he has reversed the findings of C.O. The appellate authority has given no weightage on the decisions rendered by the revenue courts. The dispute regarding title had already been settled up to the court of Additional Commissioner, Faizabad. He had drawn the attention of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that unchallenged, uncontroverted revenue entries had become final after recording the name of Nazbun Nisah on account of death of Habibur Rahman, the original tenure holder in the year 1958, even otherwise the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has dealt with the judgments summarily without recording detailed reasons on each and every point, which were dealt with by the C.O. Here is a case where 18 issues were framed by the C.O., covering the entire disputes. A detailed judgment was rendered by the C.O. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the S.O.C. to have dealt with each and every issue and while reversing the findings and conclusion it ought to have been given detailed reasons. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation must have recorded as to why and on what basis he was not in agreement with the findings and conclusions drawn by the C.O. In the present case the controversy in respect of fact has been properly set at rest by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by writing a 10 pages long judgment and order on 22.5.2006. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and this Court has taken note of the facts that Subhan had disappeared from the village in the year 1925 much before the death of his father Habibur Rahman in the year 1958. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and this Court has taken note of the facts that Subhan had disappeared from the village in the year 1925 much before the death of his father Habibur Rahman in the year 1958. It is interesting to note that after the death of Habibur Rahman in the year 1958, the revenue entries were corrected by bringing name of Nazbun Nisha, second wife of tenure holder. The contest was made by Bhallu etc. claiming themselves to be Mukhtare-am (power of attorney holder) of Subhan. Subhan was never physically presented before the revenue courts. He or his power of attorney holders did nothing for several years till the consolidation proceedings commenced in the village. Substantial area of land is involved in the present case. It is really incredible that a person who is alive and is living in any city of India may be in Bombay could have come once to take care of his land (40 Bighas) and manage the affairs regarding his land. There is a substance in the submission of Shri Shafiq Mirza that in the present case Subhan never visited his native place even during festivals like Id, Bakreed, Moharram etc. Moreover, even people serving in Arabian and Gulf countries at least visits their native place in India in one or two years. The alleged Subhan never visited his native place nor pursued his case in the revenue courts and in the consolidation courts. This court has noted that a request was made by Nazbun Nisah, Abdul Ahad before the court to appoint a Commissioner to visit Bombay and contact alleged Subhan. Despite orders of the court, the petitioners did not cooperate with the court to deposit the amount so that the Commissioner may visit Bombay to contact Subhan. The petitioners had failed to prove before the two consolidation courts that they were sons of Subhan. But in the present case the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly held that Subhan ought to have appeared before the court to prove that he was still alive. He did not even visit his native place after the death of his own mother Kalsumnisha and death of own father Habibur Rahman. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also noted that right from 1958 Subhan never put in appearance before any court to get his statement recorded before personally appeared in the court. He did not even visit his native place after the death of his own mother Kalsumnisha and death of own father Habibur Rahman. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also noted that right from 1958 Subhan never put in appearance before any court to get his statement recorded before personally appeared in the court. Even the S.D.O. on 2.4.1960 had recorded a findings of fact that Subhan did not appear before his court nor produce any evidence in support of his claim over the land in dispute. Even in the year 1958, Subhan was afforded an opportunity to come forward before the revenue authority to record his name in the revenue records. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly recorded the following observations:-'' @Hindi@ 18. Even on the dates for recording of statements of Subhan i.e. 26.9.1974, 29.10.1974 and 13.12.1974, he did not appear in person. Interestingly, an application was submitted by his Muktare-am on 25.4.1977 indicating therein that the case may be disposed of on the basis of whatever material is available on record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation had affirmed the findings of the Trial Court i.e. Consolidation Officer that there was no option left except to draw inference of civil death of Subhan. On 4.7.1985, different persons Kallu, Bhallu, Shakeel and Adil appeared before the court given a contradictory parentage before the different courts. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a clear and specific finding that one Aziz-jul-rehman was interested in usurping the property of Habibur Rahman. Several endeavours were made by him since 1958. He was instrumental in fabricating false story before the consolidation courts. Detailed findings and reasons have been recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in dealing with the disputed question of facts. Ultimately, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the claim set out by the petitioners and various other persons who had appeared before the revenue and consolidation courts claiming themselves to be well-wishers, power of attorney holders of Subhan. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note that if Subhan could come to Gonda to execute a power of attorney then why he could not appear before the revenue courts and the consolidation courts to get his statement recorded. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note that if Subhan could come to Gonda to execute a power of attorney then why he could not appear before the revenue courts and the consolidation courts to get his statement recorded. The issue no.4 regarding existence of Subhan has been dealt with by the Deputy Director of Consolidation framed by the C.O. that Subhan was not alive in the year 1958 and thereafter. After the death of Habibur Rahman and Subhan entries in the Kutumb register, electoral roll were treated to be incredible in the circumstances of the case. 19. In view of above discussions, this court is satisfied with the findings recorded by the two courts below i.e. Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given a detailed, well considered judgment running in 10 pages, dealing with each and every issue regarding question of facts and law and also appreciated by this court. A continuing wrong has been undone by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is a court of fact and law under Section 48A of U.P. C.H. Act. The petitioners have failed to persuade this court to form any other opinion than the one already formed by the court of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 20. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 21. Interim order is discharged. All the necessary consequences shall immediately follow. The Consolidation and Revenue Authorities are directed to correct the entries in the consolidation and revenue records. The concerned revenue authorities are directed to put the legal heirs of late Habibur Rahman and Nazbun Nisha, Abdul Ahad respondent no.3 and now his legal heirs and legal representatives in possession over the land in dispute. The directions shall be carried out immediately.