JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Bhat holding brief of Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh for the petitioner. The writ petition has been field against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 31.3.2006, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 13.8.2007 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.11.2014 passed in the proceeding under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The dispute related to the inheritance of the property of Dhaniram the petitioner filed an objection that Dhani Ram executed a will/family settlement dated 21.3.2004 by which he had given all of his property to both of his sons, namely, Mangal Singh and Kammod Singh. Thereafter Dhaniram died on 6.4.2004 and on the basis of family settlement dated 21.3.2004 two sons inherited the property in dispute as such the share of the petitioner is 1/2. It maybe mentioned here that after the death of Dhani Ram, Smt. Radha Rani widow of Dhani Ram, in respect of her 1/3 share and Kammod Singh son of Dhani Ram, in respect of his 1/6 share in the property in dispute executed a sale-deed dated 8.2.2007 in favour of Smt. Laxmi Devi, respondent-7. Respondents filed an application for mutation of her name under section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on which the Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.8.2008 directed for mutation of her name on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Smt. Radha Rani and Kammod Singh over the share described in it. In the case filed by the petitioner it is alleged that the petitioner and his mother Radha Rani and Kammod Singh entered into a compromise dated 23.11.2005 and thereafter statement of Smt. Radha Rani and Kammod Singh were recorded. They verified the execution of compromise. However, when the matter was heard by the Consolidation Officer, he found in his order dated 31.3.2006 that in case the deed dated 21.3.2004 is treated as a Will executed by Dhani Ram then its due execution was required to be proved according to the provision of section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but no attesting witness was examined to prove its due execution as such no reliance can be placed upon it. Accordingly it has been held that after the death of Dhani Ram the property in dispute was jointly inherited by his widow Smt. Radha Rani and two sons, namely, Mangal Singh and Kammod Singh. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. The appeal was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 8.12.2006. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed in the mutation case filed by Smt. Laxmi Devi in appeal. This appeal was dismissed by the order dated 12.8.2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed two revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the aforesaid orders which were consolidated and decided by order dated 23.3.2013 and both the revisions were dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that the deed dated 21.3.2004 is the family settlement inasmuch as during the life time Dhani Ram divided his property between his sons and mother was not given any share in it. The family settlement was acted upon inasmuch as Smt. Radha Rani and Kammod Singh both recorded their statements before the Consolidation Officer and they filed compromise also in such circumstances the consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the family settlement. The orders of the consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner, his mother and other brother were having any pre-existed interest in the property in dispute. In case Dhani Ram was transferring his property to his sons then registration of Will deed dated 21.3.2004 was compulsory and the deed being an unregistered documents is not admissible in evidence in view of section 49 of Registration Act, 1908. In case it is treated as a Will executed by Dhani Ram then its due execution is to be proved by at least one attesting witness as required under section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Admittedly, no attesting witness was examined as such due execution of the Will was not proved. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, 2009 (107) RD 620 (SC) that the provision of section 68 of Evidence Act is mandatory and its requirements cannot be dispensed with on the ground of admission. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, 2009 (107) RD 620 (SC) that the provision of section 68 of Evidence Act is mandatory and its requirements cannot be dispensed with on the ground of admission. In such circumstances the consolidation authorities have rightly ignored the Will deed dated 21.3.2004. Admittedly, Dhani Ram died after the amendment in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in 1998 and according to the provision of section171 of the Act after the death of Dhani Ram his property devolved upon his widow and two sons each having 1/3 share in it. The consolidation authorities have not committed any error in deciding the share of the petitioner in land in dispute. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.