JUDGMENT : 1. Under challenge is the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh dated 15.11.1984 whereby he has set aside the order passed by the Settlement Office of Consolidation dated 21.08.1979 and has affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 22.12.1978. 2. This judgment shall also decide and dispose of the connected petition no, 1635 of 1985. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the similar proceedings in between the same parties, accordingly, they have been hard and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. The Court shall notice the facts from the leading petition No. 266 of 1985 and wherever required, a reference would be made to the facts of the connected petition no. 1635 of 1985. 4. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed first:- 5. The dispute relates to the rights as claimed by the parties concerned upon the death of Bhagwati who expired in August, 1976. In CH Form-23, Chak No. 231 was recorded in the name of Bhagwati and Saran. Chak No. 235 was recorded in the name of Bhagwati alone. Chak No. 413 was recorded in the name of Sambhar who is the original respondent no. 3 (and after his death he is now represented by his legal heirs along with Sri Ram Manohar (the petitioner of W.P. No. 1635 of 1985) and Ram Sumer (the petitioner of instant petition No. 266 of 1985). Ram sumer, the original petitioner also died during the pendency of the present petition and is now represed by his legal heirs. While Chak No. 459 which was in the name of Bhagwati and Sambhar and Chak No. 424 was in the name of Saran. 6. Upon the death of Bhagwati, the issue regarding succession was raised and Sambhar, the private respondent no. 3 claimed his share in the property left by Bhagwati on the basis of a registered will dated 05.12.1975 in terms whereof half share would devolve on Sambhar and the remaining half would devolve on Ram Sumer and Ram Manohar (i.e. each would have 1/4th share). 7. 3 claimed his share in the property left by Bhagwati on the basis of a registered will dated 05.12.1975 in terms whereof half share would devolve on Sambhar and the remaining half would devolve on Ram Sumer and Ram Manohar (i.e. each would have 1/4th share). 7. The present petitioner Ram Sumer raised objections that the property in question was ancestral and that Bhagwati was the Karta of the family and his name was recorded in the representative capacity and upon his death each of the legal heirs would be entitled to the equal shares and he disputed the execution of the registered will in favour of Sambhar on the ground that Bhagwati was aged and mentally feeble and did not execute the will. 8. The other set of objections was filed by Ram Manohar who claimed himself to be the son of Saran. It was his case that Saran and Bhagwati were real brothers and upon the death of Saran, he being the son succeeded to the half share of Saran. 9. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the parties led evidence and the Consolidation Officer, Pratapgarh after framing issues by means of his judgment dated 22.12.1978 held that Sambhar, Ram Manohar and Ram Sumer all three were the sons of Bhagwati and the claim of Ram Manohar that he is the son of Saran was turned down. 10. He further recorded a finding that the will executed by Bhagwati in favour of Sambhar was duly proved and in terms whereof Sambhar would have half share in all the chaks No. 231, 235, 459 and 424 while the Ram Sumer and Ram Manohar would have 1/4th share each in the aforesaid four chaks. 11. He turned down the claim in respect of Chak No. 413 as it was not recorded in the name of Bhagwati as it was in the name of Sambhar, Ram Manohar and Ram Sumer already. 12. He also observed that though the will in question was in respect of two Sirdari Chaks no. 231 and 235 but held the will and bequest to be valid and operative. 13. 12. He also observed that though the will in question was in respect of two Sirdari Chaks no. 231 and 235 but held the will and bequest to be valid and operative. 13. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 22.12.1978, Four appeals were filed of which three appeals were filed by Ram Manohar and one appeal was filed by Ram Sumer which were all connected and decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Pratapgarh by means of its judgment dated 21.08.1979. 14. The Appellate Court partially allowed the appeals by affirming the findings that the Will in favour of Sambhar was duly proved and also that Ram Sumer and Ram Manohar and Sambhar were all the sons of Bhagwati, however, he reversed the findings in respect of Khata no. 235 and held that the same was Sirdari and could not bequethed by way of a Will. However, he accepted the claim in so far as the Chak No. 231 is concerned as in respect thereto a bhumidhari sanad was available and that being a Bhumidhari Khata, the Will was found valid, thus, in respect of Chak No. 235, the Will was not found to be valid and he granted equal rights to Ram Sumer, Ram Manohar and Sambhar having 1/3rd rights each in respect of Chak No. 235. 15. The matter was escalated before the DDC by filing a revision both by Sambhar where by his share in terms of the Will was not accepted in respect of Chak No. 235 and also by Ram Manohar whose claim being the son of Saran had been turned down and so also by Ram Sumer whose claim had been turned down as he had challenged the Will. 16. The DDC, Pratapgarh after hearing the parties affirmed the finding regarding the Will being proved and that Ram Manohar was the son of Bhagwati and not Saran and also on that the Will was valid in respect of Chak No. 235 as well. 17. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant petition has been preferred by Ram Sumer and the other connected petition has been preferred by Ram Manohar. 18. Sri Girish Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Jaipal Singh, counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions has submitted that the Courts have misconstrued the fact that chak no. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant petition has been preferred by Ram Sumer and the other connected petition has been preferred by Ram Manohar. 18. Sri Girish Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Jaipal Singh, counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions has submitted that the Courts have misconstrued the fact that chak no. 231 and 235 were sirdhari chaks and they could not have been bequethed by a Will. It is urged that the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer which was rightly set aside by the SOC has again incorrectly been reversed by the DDC while affirming the status as granted by the Consolidation Officer. 19. It is also urged that admittedly Bhagwati died in August, 1976 and it is on that date that the succession would open. Since Bhagwati had not acquired bhumidhari rights, accordingly, the decision of the Consolidation Officer and the DDC was erroneous and the petitioner Ram Sumer would have 1/3rd rights in the said chaks by virtue of Section 171 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 which relates to devolution of interest. 20. It is also urged that Bhagwati in his life time had made an application seeking bhumidhari rights and had sought the permission to deposit 20 times of land revenue for the grant of bhumidhari sanad but before the said application could be allowed or Bhagwati could be permitted to deposit the money, Bhagwati expired, thus, on the date when he expired, the Chak No. 231 and 235 remained sirdari which could not be transferred even by virtue of a Will and thus Ram Sumar would have 1/3rd share in the aforesaid two chaks. 21. While arguing the connected wri petition on behalf of Ram Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner feebly argued that the findings recorded by the three courts holding Ram Manohar to be the son of Bhagwati was erroneous and thus urged that both the petitions be allowed. 22. Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for Sambhar in the two petitions have urged that in so far as the findings regarding the execution and attestation of the Will executed by Bhagwati in favour of Sambhar is concerned, the same was proved in accordance with law. One of the attesting witness as required in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 23. One of the attesting witness as required in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 23. It is also urged that in so far as the Chak no. 231 and 235 is concerned, in both the Chaks, Bhagwati had acquired bhumidhari rights and as such the same could be transferred by way of a Will. 24. He further submits that once the will was duly proved and at the date when the will became operative i.e. in August, 1976 and Bhagwati had already acquired bhumidhari rights in respect of Chak No. 235 and he had already made the application of depositing 20 times of the land revenue and though the bhumidhari sanad was not granted but the very fact is that he had deposited the land revenue during his lifetime and with the advent of Ordinance of 1977 which became the Act of Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977 conferring bhumidhari rights on all the sirdars, the rights matured in favour of Sambhar and as such the findings which have been recorded by the Consolidation Officer or the DDC is in accordance with law and requires no interference. 25. He further urges that the three Courts have concurrently recorded a finding that Ram Manohar was the son of Bhagwati which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and Ram Manohar did not lead any evidence to establish that he is the son of Saran and in these circumstances, no error can be found in the order passed by the DDC, consequently, both the writ petitions filed by Ram Sumar and Ram Manohar are liable to be dismissed. 26. Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Dev Nandan and others Vs. Ram Saran and others reported in (2000) S SCC 430 as well as in the case of Rakesh and others Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others reported in (2019) 19 SCC 785 . 27. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also meticulously perused the material on record. 28. The controversy involved in the instant petition has been confined only in respect of Chak No. 231 and 235. It is the case of the petitioner Ram Sumer that the same were the sirdari chaks which could not be transferred or bequeathedby a Will. 29. 28. The controversy involved in the instant petition has been confined only in respect of Chak No. 231 and 235. It is the case of the petitioner Ram Sumer that the same were the sirdari chaks which could not be transferred or bequeathedby a Will. 29. The record indicates that it is not disputed between the parties that Bhagwati died in August, 1976. It is also not disputed between the parties that Bhagwati had applied for bhumidhari rights in respect of Khata No. 235. As far as the validity of the Will is concerned, all the three courts have concurrently held that the will was duly proved in accordance with law. The ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petition that Bhagwati was of a feeble mind and that the attesting witness has not duly proved the Will does not appear to be open to be challenged as the three courts have concurrently after appreciating the evidence has recorded these findings which are binding on this Court as no perversity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the attestation and execution of the will is concerned. Thus, this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not going to re-appraise the evidence merely on the asking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, especially when he has not been able to point out any perversity. 30. Having said that now the issue involve is whether by virtue of the will, Chak Nos. 231 and 235 could have bequeathedby the party or not. 31. In order to answer the same, it will be relevant to notice that before the Consolidation Officer, the parties had led their evidence and reference has also been made by the Consolidation Officer to the documentary evidence led by the parties. It would indicate that amongst the various documentary evidence filed before the Consolidation Officer, it also included a bhumidhari sanad. The record also indicates that Bhagwati had moved an application for claiming the bhumidhari rights in respect of Chak No. 235. It would indicate that amongst the various documentary evidence filed before the Consolidation Officer, it also included a bhumidhari sanad. The record also indicates that Bhagwati had moved an application for claiming the bhumidhari rights in respect of Chak No. 235. Apparently, what this Court finds is that in so far as Chak No. 231 is concerned, there does not appear to be much dispute as the Consolidation Authorities have also recorded a finding that in so far as the Chak No. 231 is concerned it was a bhumidhari khata and therefore and as such the same could be validly bequeathedby a Will. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the bhumidhari sanad filed before the Consolidation Officer and also referred to in his judgment did relate to Chak No. 231 and thus the finding based thereon cannot be assailed. 32. This now narrows the controversy only in respect of chak no. 235. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that the alleged application moved by Bhagwati only indicated that he had applied for permission to deposit 20 times the land revenue to acquire the bhumidhari rights, however, there is nothing on record either before the Consolidation or even before this Court to indicate that 20 times of the land revenue has been paid by Bhagwati. 33. Thus, at best, the application was merely to seek the permission but since the amount was not deposited during the lifetime by Bhagwati, therefore, on the date of death of Bhagwati, no bhumidhari ritghts had accrued in respect of Chak No. 235 and that being Sirdhari, the petitioner along with Sambhar and Ram Manohar would have 1/3rd share therein. 34. Thus, at best, the application was merely to seek the permission but since the amount was not deposited during the lifetime by Bhagwati, therefore, on the date of death of Bhagwati, no bhumidhari ritghts had accrued in respect of Chak No. 235 and that being Sirdhari, the petitioner along with Sambhar and Ram Manohar would have 1/3rd share therein. 34. Per contra, Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel submits that Bhagwati had not only moved the application for depositing the 20 times of land revenue but he had also deposited the same and once the amount stood deposited during the lifetime of Bhagwati and though the sanad was not issued but upon the advent of the Ordinance of 1977, the application of Bhagwati abated however the fact remained that he would be granted the benefit which would have retrospective operation, inasmuch as, for conferring the bhumidhar rights, the sine qua non was of deposit 20 times of land revenue and once that had been done even though the sanad was issued later or not issued it would have a retrospective operation and would relate to the date of deposit of 20 times of the land revenue. 35. Thus, it is submitted that Bhagwati had deposited the land revenue in his lifetime and the Ordinance came in February, 1977, accordingly, the Bhumidhari rights would accrue to Bhagwati who had deposited the 20 times of land revenue in his lifetime and the land in question would be treated to be bhumidhari which could be bequeathedby the will and as such the finding of the DDC does not require any interference. 36. In this regard, from the perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that the respondent no. 3 has filed his counter affidavit wherein paragraph 14, it has been stated that Bhagwati had deposited 20 times of land revenue on 05.12.1975 in respect of Chak No. 231 as well as Chak No. 235 and had moved an application for grant of bhumidhari sanad. A copy of the said application has been brought on record as Annexure No. CA-2, however, from the perusal of the said document CA-2, it reveals that only relates to Chak No. 235 and not of Chak No. 231. A copy of the said application has been brought on record as Annexure No. CA-2, however, from the perusal of the said document CA-2, it reveals that only relates to Chak No. 235 and not of Chak No. 231. The said application indicates that the manner in which the application has been drafted indicates that permission was being sought by Bhagwati to deposit 20 times of the land revenue. There is no material on record to indicate that the land revenue was actually deposited in December, 1975 as alleged in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3. It is also to be noticed that even though the Ordinance came in the year 1977 and all sirdars were conferred with the bhumidhari rights but the fact remains that the crucial date would be the date of death of Bhagwati as the succession would open at the said point of time. Admittedly, Bhagwati expired in August, 1976 and thus even though the Ordinance came in 1977, it would not confer bhumidhari rights on Bhagwati retrospectively, unless it could be established that he had deposited 20 times of the land revenue during his lifetime. 37. The decisions of the Apex Court of Dev Nandan (Supra) and Rakesh (Supra) are only an authority on the point that the crucial aspect is the date of deposit of 20 times of the land revenue, once, that having been done, even though, the Sanad is executed or issued later, it would relate back to the date of deposit of 20 times of the land revenue. The aforesaid decisions could come to the rescue of the private respondent no. 3 provided they could establish by material on record that they had acquired the bhumidhari rights and Bhagwati in his lifetime had deposited 20 times of the land revenue. A mere bald plea without any supporting document filed along with the counter affidavit cannot be a strong reason enough to reverse the findings which otherwise has been recorded on material on record. . 38. Since the respondent no. 3 is claiming that Bhagwati had deposited 20 times of land revenue in his lifetime and had acquired bhumidhari rights in respect of chak no. 235 then the burden was on the respondent no. 3 to have established the payment of 20 times of land revenue by bringing on record the receipts of deposit. . 38. Since the respondent no. 3 is claiming that Bhagwati had deposited 20 times of land revenue in his lifetime and had acquired bhumidhari rights in respect of chak no. 235 then the burden was on the respondent no. 3 to have established the payment of 20 times of land revenue by bringing on record the receipts of deposit. Mere application which had been filed does not indicate that the amount has been paid nor there is any averment in the application which has been filed along with the counter affidavit indicating that Bhagwati had deposited the land revenue. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Bhagwati had acquired bhumidhari rights in chak no. 235. 39. Sri R.S. Tripathi has also made a submissions that he has certain requisite documents indicating that Bhagwati had acquired bhumidhari rights in respect of bhumidhari rights, however, that being so, since the same are not on record and by making a mere submission, it is not going to have much impact as the findings have to be recorded and the case is to be decided on the basis of material available on record and not on mere submissions. 40. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that the DDC has erred in upholding the finding that Bhagwati had acquired bhumidhari rights in respect of chak no. 235 is concerned. In so far as chak no. 231 is concerned, since a bhumidhari sanad was already on record, hence, it cannot be said that the finding was bad, accordingly, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as it relates to Chak No. 231 is concerned is turned down but his submissions in respect of chak no. 235 is upheld. 41. In so far as the connected writ petition is concerned which has been filed by Ram Manohar claiming rights in the four chaks being the son of Saran as noticed earlier that the learned counsel has made feeble submissions nor could indicate by any cogent reasons that the findings recorded by the three courts are erroneous. 235 is upheld. 41. In so far as the connected writ petition is concerned which has been filed by Ram Manohar claiming rights in the four chaks being the son of Saran as noticed earlier that the learned counsel has made feeble submissions nor could indicate by any cogent reasons that the findings recorded by the three courts are erroneous. On the contrary, from the perusal of the record, it would indicate that several evidences which have been brought on record which has been noticed in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer which clearly indicated that Ram Manohar was the son of Bhagwati and the same being findings of fact concurred by two other courts of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are binding unless shown to be perverse. 42. In this view of the matter, the connected writ petition no. 1635 being concluded by findings of fact, the Court is not inclined to interfere and the said writ petition shall stand dismissed. In so far as the writ petition No. 266 of 1985 is concerned, the same is partly allowed. The order of DDC, Pratapgarh dated 15.11.1984 shall stand modified only to the extent that Sambhar would be entitled to half share on the basis of the will in respect of Chak No. 231 but in respect of Chak No. 235 each of the parties i.e. Sambhar, Ram Manohar and Ram Sumer would have equal 1/3rd share. The findings in respect of Chak Nos. 413 ,416 and 424 as provided in the order of DDC, Pratapgarh shall be maintained. 43. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.