JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 namely Smt. Ramapti has inadvertently been mentioned as a party while she had already expired and accordingly the petitioners may be permitted to carry out necessary correction in the array of parties. 2. Learned Standing Counsel and Shri Mohan Singh for the Gaon Sabha submit that they have no objections in case C.M.A No.Nil dated 4.2.2025 is allowed. 3. This Court finds that the said application is merely formal in nature and does not impact the merits of the case and accordingly the application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out the necessary amendment, forthwith. 4. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4/Gaon Sabha. 5. Under challenge is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur dated 30.3.2024 whereby the revision of the petitioners was dismissed as a consequence the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Conso0lidation dated 1.1.2009 as well as the judgement and order dated 31.7.1992 passed by the Consolidation Officer (V), Kadipur, Sultanpur has been upheld. 6. For the sake of convenience, the court is referring to the parties as were originally impleaded before the Consolidation authorities. 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute relates to Khata No.495, 496, 101 and 436 which were recorded in the basic year in name of Ram Achraj, Ram Kumar @ Tiddi and Smt. Kulwanta. Upon the commencement of consolidation operations in village Milkipur, District Sultanpur, several set of objections under Section 9 -A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to "U.P.C.H.Act, 1953" were filed. 8. Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj had filed their objections on the ground that the property belonged to Ram Prasad and upon his death, it was succeeded by his wife Smt. Bhagwanta. Upon her death, the property ought to revert back to the heirs of the last male decedents and would come in the hands of Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj. It was also stated that Kulwanta who claimed to be the daughter of Bhagwanta was not quite correct inasmuch as Kulwanta was the daughter of Bhagwanta not with Ram Prasad but of Bhagwanta and Sukhdeo. It was also stated that Kulwanta who claimed to be the daughter of Bhagwanta was not quite correct inasmuch as Kulwanta was the daughter of Bhagwanta not with Ram Prasad but of Bhagwanta and Sukhdeo. 9. Thus the crux of the objections of Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj was that they denied Kulwanta to be the daughter of Bhagwanta and Ram Prasad and as such she would not inherit and the property would vest with Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj. 10. Kulwanta also contested the proceedings and her case was that after the death of Ram Prasad, the property was succeeded by Bhagwanta and after the death of Bhagwanta, it vested with Kashi who was taken in adoption by Smt. Bhagwanta as her son. After the death of Kashi, the property came to be recorded in the name of Kulwanta who had applied for a Bhumidhari Sanad which was issued on 23.1.1970 and thus, having complete rights in the property in question, she sold her share in the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 16.12.1965. Accordingly, Gaya Deen, Sita Ram, Nankau, Ram Shak and Ram Ujagar claimed their rights on the basis of the sale deed executed by Smt. Kulwanta in their favour in the year 1965. 11. Another set of objections were filed by Jairam claiming adverse possession and another set was filed by one Shri Raja Ram on the basis of the possession. 12. The Consolidation Officer after considering the stand taken by the contesting parties framed as many as 17 issues. After considering the evidence, it recorded a finding that after the death of Bhagwanta, the name of Kashi was recorded and after the death of Kashi, the name of Kulwanta was duly recorded in the revenue records. It also noticed that Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj had disputed the parentage of Kulwanta and in a suit instituted under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 ( hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1950" ) which came to be decreed wherein a finding was recorded that Kulwanta was the daughter of Ram Prasad and Bhagwanta. It therefore, concluded that Khata Nos.495 and 496 which were Bhumidhari be given to Ram Kumar, Ram Acharaj and the name of Kulwanta be deleted. It therefore, concluded that Khata Nos.495 and 496 which were Bhumidhari be given to Ram Kumar, Ram Acharaj and the name of Kulwanta be deleted. It also found that land of Khata No.436 was Sirdari land and as such, Kulwanta did not have the right to transfer, hence the land was vested in favour of Gaon Sabha relating to the Sirdari Khata. 13. The objections filed by other persons contesting on the basis of possession and adverse possession were also turned down vide its judgement dated 31.7.1992. 14. Being aggrieved against the judgement dated 31.7.1992, two appeals came to be filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and both the appeals came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 1.1.2009. Thereafter, two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who also after going through the records and after hearing the parties dismissed the revision on 30.3.2024 and in this fashion, the petitioners have come up before this Court assailing the impugned orders. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that three consolidation courts have failed to consider that Kulwanta who was the daughter of Ram Prasad and Bhagwanta and had half share in the property whereas the other half would vest jointly in favour of Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj in light of the findings recorded in suit filed under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 which was decreed on 18.11.1966. It is urged that the name of Kulwanta was recorded in the basic year Khatauni at the commencement of consolidation operations and it has erroneously been held by the three consolidation courts that Kulwanta did not have any right. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Kulwanta had been conferred with Sanad dated 25.7.1950 which was finally issued on 23.1.1970 and in terms thereof, Smt. Kulwanta had full rights in the property, hence she had the right to sell the same and the finding recorded by the consolidation authorities that Kulwanta did not have the right to execute the sale deed is per se against the material on record. 16. It has further been urged that initially Bhagwanta had moved an application for grant of Sanad before the Tehsildar on 29.5.1950 and pursuance thereof, the Tehsildar had passed the order on 25.7.1950 issuing Bhumidhari rights. 16. It has further been urged that initially Bhagwanta had moved an application for grant of Sanad before the Tehsildar on 29.5.1950 and pursuance thereof, the Tehsildar had passed the order on 25.7.1950 issuing Bhumidhari rights. Once the said Bhumidhari rights were conferred thereafter upon the death of Bhagwanta, Kulwanta would inherit and even otherwise she also got the Sanad in her name on 23.1.1970, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.13 and thus she had full rights to execute the sale deed and her successor/ transferee in interest would be conferred with absolute title and this aspect of the matter has not been appropriately considered by the three consolidation authorities and as such the impugned order depriving the transferee in interest of Kulwanta, rights in the property, is patently illegally and against the record. 17. It has also been urged that there was no occasion for vesting the property with Gaon Sabha since Sirdari rights had been converted to Bhumidhari rights by virtue of an amendment in the year 1977 in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,1950 coupled with the fact that even Bhagwanta in her life time had applied for a Sanad in the year 1950 and even otherwise Kulwanta had got the Sanad on 23.1.1970. Accordingly, there was a clear title insofar as Kulwanta is concerned but the same has been ignored by the three consolidation authorities and on the basis of insufficient evidence as well as surmises and conjectures findings have been recorded which has rendered the impugned orders bad in the eyes of law and they are liable to be set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the provisions of United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 to submit that Bhagwanta had applied for Sanad which was granted on 25.7.1950 but could not be issued as the proceedings under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 was pending. Thus, when the suit came to be partly decreed and when Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj filed an appeal. During its pendency, as there was no stay, hence, the Sanad conferred rights on Smt. Kulwanta to execute the sale deeds which had been done and this act of Kulwanta cannot be faulted. Even this aspect has also not been considered by the three consolidation authorities rendering their orders/judgements bad in the eyes of law. 19. During its pendency, as there was no stay, hence, the Sanad conferred rights on Smt. Kulwanta to execute the sale deeds which had been done and this act of Kulwanta cannot be faulted. Even this aspect has also not been considered by the three consolidation authorities rendering their orders/judgements bad in the eyes of law. 19. Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State has submitted that three consolidation authorities have rightly arrived at a clear finding of fact that the sale deed said to have been executed by Kulwanta are dated 16.12.1965 whereas the Sanad was issued on 23.1.1970. Since the Sanad is dated 23.1.1970 hence on 16.12.1965, Kulwanta did not have the right to transfer the land as no Sirdari could transfer the property by executing the sale deed. Accordingly, it has rightly been held that the sale deeds executed by Kulwanta were bad in the eyes of law. It has also been pointed out that since the alleged Sanad which has been claimed by the petitioners was executed in favour of Kulwanta is dated 23.1.1970 and there was already an order staying the issuance of a Sanad in the suit under Section 229 -B which remained pending and thus for the said reason, the Sanad of 23.1.1970 has been held by the consolidation authorities to be bad and the finding does not suffer from any illegality. 20. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, it is urged that the findings which have been recorded are pure findings of facts based upon the material, evidence, hence they do not require any interference and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 21. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha has also adopted the submissions of Dr. Krishna Singh to contend that no right accrued to Smt. Kulwanta nor she had any right to execute the sale deed in December, 1965. Hence, the three judgements passed by the consolidation authorities requires no interference. 22. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 23. In light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the record, certain facts emerge which are required to be recapitulated for the better appreciation of the controversy. (i). It is not disputed that the property belonged to Ram Prasad which devolved on his widow Bhagwanta. 23. In light of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the record, certain facts emerge which are required to be recapitulated for the better appreciation of the controversy. (i). It is not disputed that the property belonged to Ram Prasad which devolved on his widow Bhagwanta. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that there is a divergence in the stand taken by Kulwanta inasmuch as it was stated that after the death of Ram Prasad, his widow Bhagwanta had adopted Kashi as her son. {Kashi is the biological son of Kulwanta and in that context, he would be a grand son of Bhagwanta (Naati)}. (ii). Ram Kumar and Ram Acharaj had disputed the parentage of Kulwanta on the premise that after the death of Ram Prasad, Bhagwanta had relations with Sukhdeo. It is stated that Kulwanta was the daughter of Sukhdeo with Bhagwanta and not Ram Prasad and Bhagwanta. (iii). In this context, they had filed a suit under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950. The said suit came to be partly allowed on 18.11.1966 wherein it was held that Ram Acharaj and Ram Kumar together would get half share and the other half would devolve on Kulwanta. (iv). The said order dated 18.11.1966 came to be assailed in an appeal which was allowed on 20.9.1967 and the matter was remanded for decision afresh. (v). After the remand while the matter was engaging the attention of S.D.M. concerned, in October, 1970, the village in question came under consolidation operations as a consequence, the suit before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 abated in terms of Section 5 of the U.P. C.H.Act, 1953. (vi). It will also be relevant to notice that the petitioners have pleaded that Smt. Bhagwanta, widow of Ram Prasad had moved an application on 29.5.1950 before the Tehsildar for issuance of Bhumidhari certificate and the Tehsildar vide its order dated 25.7.1950 issued the Bhumidhari certificate in favour of Bhagwanta. It is in this context that after the death of Bhagwanta, the name of her adopted son Kashi came to be recorded in the Khatauni. (vii). It is in this context that after the death of Bhagwanta, the name of her adopted son Kashi came to be recorded in the Khatauni. (vii). It is also pleaded by the petitioners that Smt. Kulwanta had filed a suit and in the said proceedings, the Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 5.4.1966 stayed the issuance of Sanad to Smt. Kulwanta till the disposal of the declaratory suit. (viii). Smt. Kulwanta is said to have challenged the order dated 5.4.1966 by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division but the same was dismissed on 27.10.1966. 24. In the aforesaid factual matrix, it would reveal that though the issue of Kashi having been adopted by Bhagwanta is concerned, the Consolidation Officer has not considered the aforesaid plea nor given his findings. This aspect has been noticed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation but it did not delve on the said issue and it concentrated on the right of Kulwanta and found that Kulwanta would have no right to alienate the property in 1965 as she had no right to alienate sirdari land. Consequently, the transferee in interest would not get any right even if at all the Sanad dated 23.1.1970 is taken to be validly executed in favour of Smt. Kulwanta and the said findings were upheld even by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 25. The primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is based on Sanad. If this plea of the petitioners is noticed, it would be found that it is hinged on two different irreconcilable propositions. As per the petitioners, if Bhagwanta had applied for the Bhumidhari Sanad on 29.5.1950 in terms of United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges ) Act, 1949, then in terms of the said Act, it would have be shown that the grant of declaration in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 1949 was duly made. However, neither any evidence or document was placed before the consolidation courts nor before this court. However, neither any evidence or document was placed before the consolidation courts nor before this court. Even in the pleadings of the writ petition, it has been stated as a matter of fact that Bhumidhari Sanad dated 25.7.1950 was ordered by the Tehsildar in favour of Bhagwanta but neither the document nor the order passed by the Tehsildar nor the deposit of 10 times of the revenue as required in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 1949 has been placed and therefore, for the said reason, it cannot be presumed that the said Sanad was issued to Bhagwanta and it was acted upon. 26. Even otherwise, this situation cannot be reconciled for the reason that if Bhagwanta had the Bhumidhari Sanad, then there was no requirement at subsequent point of time for Smt. Kulwanta to have applied for or get a Sanad issued allegedly on 23.1.1970, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.13. 27. It is also to be seen that the alleged Sanad dated 23.1.1970, in the name of Kulwanta, does not inspire confidence inasmuch as neither the receipt for deposit of land revenue has been brought on record nor it has been explained as to how the said Sanad could have been granted on 23.1.1970 when the suit under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 was pending and in the said suit, there was an order which prevented the issuance of Sanad and the said order even though was challenged by Kulwanta but her appeal came to be dismissed on 27.10.1966. 28. The said suit of 229-B which was initially partly decreed but was made the subject matter of the appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded for decision afresh and during the pendency of the said suit the village was brought under consolidation and the suit abated. 29. Once there was an order of 5.4.1966 prohibiting the issuance of Sanad in favour of Kulwanta and the said order was affirmed in appeal vide order dated 27.10.1966 which was categoric in its contents that no Sanad would be issued till the suit under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 was pending, then under what circumstances, the Sanad was issued on 23.1.1970 could not be explained. 30. 30. Another issue which emerges from the pleadings and submissions of the parties is the fact that while the order staying the issuance of Sanad was dated 5.4.1966 and admittedly the Sanad was issued on 23.1.1970, while the suit under Section 229 -B was pending. Thus, on the date when Kulwanta executed the sale deeds i.e. on 16.12.1965 in respect of the Sirdari plots, which was not permissible as she by then did not have rights to transfer. Accordingly, the said sale deeds could not be legally recognized. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, the transferees of Kulwanta would have no right and even though a plea was sought to be raised before the consolidation courts that though on 16.12.1965, Kulwanta may not have a right but once the Sanad was issued on 23.1.1970, the disability disappeared and therefore the sale deed dated 16.12.1965 could be given recognition and the rights of the transferee of Kulwanta would be protected in terms of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. This submission did not find favour with the consolidation authorities and rightly so for the reason that sirdari land could not be alienated as the Sirdars did not have the right to alienate and they are Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights. 32. For the reasons as noticed hereinabove where the Sanad dated 23.1.1970 was itself doubtful then any right on the basis of the Sanad could not confer any title on the transferees of Kulwanta. It is for the said reason, the consolidation authorities have rightly taken over the illegally sold sirdari land and recorded the same in the Khata of the Gaon Sabha. 33. As far as the issue regarding succession and devolution of interest on Kulwanta is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence for the reason that even though the proceedings were contested through and through before the consolidation authorities but there has been no categoric chronology to indicate when did Ram Prasad die? When did Bhagwanta die? When did Bhagwanta after the death of Ram Prasad, adopt Kashi and in case if Kashi died in the life time of Bhagwanta, then how would Kulwanta inherit as after the death of Kashi as the land would vest in the last male lineal decedents and not upon Kulwanta who was the married daughter of Bhagwanta. 34. When did Bhagwanta after the death of Ram Prasad, adopt Kashi and in case if Kashi died in the life time of Bhagwanta, then how would Kulwanta inherit as after the death of Kashi as the land would vest in the last male lineal decedents and not upon Kulwanta who was the married daughter of Bhagwanta. 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not demonstrate that even in context of this succession, how Kulwanta would have a right except relying upon the judgement passed in the suit under Section 229 -B of the Act of 1950 but that will also not come to the aid of the petitioners for the reasons that the suit was initially partly allowed but the same was challenged in an appeal which was allowed on 20.9.1967 and the matter was remanded and while the said suit was pending, the village was brought under consolidation operations and the suit abated, hence any finding in that suit, could not bind the parties and this had to be established in proceedings under the U.P. C.H.Act and as already stated hereinabove, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate as to how Kulwanta would inherit in case if the plea of Bhagwanta having adopted Kashi is noticed and in case if the same is ignored, even then Bhagwanta upon her death, having inherited the property from her husband Ram Prasad, the property would revert back to the last male decedents of her husband and in such a situation, Kulwanta still would not have succeeded. 35. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merits in the petition filed by the petitioners. It is accordingly dismissed. 36. Before parting with the matter, it would be worthwhile to note that this Court in its order dated 2.9.2024, 4.9.2024 as well as 6.9.2024 had required the alleged Sanad to be examined for which a report was submitted before the Court which has been perused by the court however, since the petition has been dismissed this court does not propose to proceed any further on the basis of the said report. 37. The sealed cover which contains the forensic report, shall be part of the record of this court. 38. Costs are made easy.