Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:880 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1323 of 2024 Petitioner :- Purshottam @ Purshottam Das Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Arpit Dwivedi,Dinesh Narayan Pandey,Hari Krishna Chaubey,Varsha Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dilip Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.5. Under challenge is the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the DDC, Lucknow whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the SOC which in turn affirms the order 05.05.2008 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question was bequeathed to the petitioner by the original tenure holder namely Chheda by virtue of his Will. It is urged that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was duly recorded in the revenue record and the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Chheda was also found during the survey made at the commencement of consolidation operations. It is urged that without giving an opportunity of hearing to predecessor-in- interest namely Chheda, the Consolidation Officer had passed the order dated 05.05.2008. It is further submitted that even the appeal preferred by Chheda was dismissed without considering the material on record. In the interim period, Sri Chheda had expired and on the basis of Will executed by Chheda in favour of the petitioner, he carried the matter before the revisional court under Section 48(1) of the U.P.C.H Act, 1953 and the revisional court also did not find favour with the submissions of the revisionist and dismissed the revision which prompted the petitioner to approach this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the name of the predecessor-in-interest namely Chheda and his possession was duly recorded, it was not open to the consolidation authorities to have ignored the said material and reject the contentions. In absence of proper consideration, the substantial rights of the petitioners have been adversely affected and for the said reason, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, it indicates that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner namely Chheda in his life time had been contesting the proceedings in as much as by means of the order dated 28.06.1990, the disputed property in question was recorded as Navin Parti and entered in the Khata of Gaon Sabha. This order came to be assailed by Chheda by filing an appeal and the same was allowed on 28.06.1990 directing the parties to appear before the court concerned and the said Court was required to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that before the Consolidation Officer, the matter was heard and by means of the order dated 05.05.2008 the same was rejected with a specific finding that despite the remand order Chheda did not produce any evidence to establish his right, title or possession and for the said reasons the same was rejected affirming the earlier order dated 28.06.1990 by which the property was recorded as Navin Parti. Even before the first appellate court, no further evidence was filed by Chheda and on the basis of the earlier entries he tried to contest the appeal, however, it did not find favour and came to be dismissed on 30.09.2015. The revisional court also has echoed the same sentiments. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate and establish the right of his predecessor namely Chheda, significantly though Chheda had been contesting the proceedings since 1990, onwards, yet he could not establish his own case, despite an order of remand, he could not bring any evidence on record to establish his right, title or possession over the property and these findings have been recorded by the three consolidation authorities which are pure findings of fact. Once Sri Chheda who during his lifetime, could not establish his title, the petitioner claiming right to the property on the basis of a Will of Chheda cannot improve their stand as it is the duty of the petitioner to first establish the case/title of his vendor/testator. In view of the aforesaid, where there is no material to indicate as to how, Chheda came to be recorded as the owner of the property, no further rights can flow in favour of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench