# Tirath Raj & Ors v. D.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 430
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-26
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 5902 of 1980
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tirath-raj-ors-v-d-d-c-ors-53904
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Shankatha Rai

Issue for consideration
Whether there can be any interference in writ
jurisdiction in case of concurrent findings of all
authorities under consolidation proceedings?

Headnotes
A. Property Law - In case of concurrent
findings
of
all
authorities
under
consolidation proceedings, no interference
could be caused, except in exceptional
circumstances, such as, if the impugned order
was passed by an authority who does not have
jurisdiction to pass such order or the findings
are patently perverse. (Para 8)

In the present case, admittedly, Consolidation
Officer has not made an issue with regard to
validity of Will allegedly executed in favour of
petitioners. Only two issues, i.e., "whether name
of Kamla Kant alias Lallan was wrongly recorded
in Khata No. 40 and 130" and "what would be
the share of parties in land in dispute", were
framed. No objection was raised by petitioners
at relevant stage, i.e., before Consolidation
Officer and they have led evidence only on basis
of aforesaid two issues and accordingly the
Consolidation Officer passed order whereby
objections filed by petitioners were rejected.
(Para 9)

Admittedly, petitioners are not part of family of
Kadedeen, therefore, a doubt that said
Kadedeen could execute a Will in favour of
strangers, would be a natural doubt,
specifically when all three authorities
have returned a finding that family
members
of
Kadedeen
have
cordial
relations
amongst
each
other.
The
execution of Will, therefore, surrounds with
suspicious circumstances. (Para 10)

Surya Narain son of Kadedeen, died in 1945,
when Kadedeen was alive and in normal
circumstances it could not be believed that
Kadedeen
would
disassociate
his
minor
grandson, when there was no evidence that
there was uncordial relationship between father
and son. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
also upheld said findings. Deputy Director of
Consolidation has considered the issue of Will at
length that it was dated 07.05.1951 and though
he referred that a 20 years old document, if
submitted from a genuine custody, could be
considered a genuine document, however, still a
finding was returned that petitioners have
failed to prove the Will in accordance with
law as well as upheld the suspicious
circumstances. (Para 11)

Aforesaid concurrent findings were based
on material and at this belated stage the
Court cannot reopen the issue of Will,
since all the authorities under Act, 1953
have put a doubt on the manner of
execution of Will, which are legally valid
also. (Para 12)

B. Admittedly petitioners have failed to
prove
Will
in
accordance
with
law,
therefore, no case of interference is made
out in the concurrent orders passed by all
three authorities under Act, 1953. (Para 14)

Consolidation proceedings were commenced in
the year 1977, i.e., 48 years ago and this writ
petition was filed against concurrent findings of
all three authorities under Act, 1953 in the year
1980, i.e., about 45 years ago. The prayer for
stay was already rejected by this Court,
therefore, at this stage even if the Court
considers argument of learned counsel for
petitioners that issue of Will could be decided,
however, the matter cannot be remitted to
Consolidation Officer. Otherwise also, the Court
is of the view that concurrent findings
cannot be disturbed since the same are
not perverse. (Para 13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

42. As regards the submission of delay in
inquiry in passing the final orders is concerned ,
in case direction of writ court was not complied
with then contempt petition should have been
filed. The delay in inquiry was not deliberate as
several opportunities were given to the
petitioner for the purpose of inquiring about the
certificate from the University concerned in
which time was required. Even otherwise it is
not relevant in the facts of the present case.

43. To the submission as made by counsel
for the petitioner regarding violation of Article
311 (2) of the Constitution of India, this Court
finds that it is settled proposition of law that
protection under Article 311 of the Constitution
of India is available only to a person who has
been validly and legally appointed to any post
under the Union or a State. The Constitutional
safeguard presupposes a lawful entry into a
service. Where an incumbent secures an
appointment by suppression of material facts or
by
producing
forged
and/or
fabricated
documents such an appointment is void ab
initio and confers no right to hold the post. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Vishwanatha
Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in
2004 (2) SCC 105, Union of India Vs. M.
Bhaskaran reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC
100
and
others
pronouncements
has
consistently held that fraud vitiates everything
and that any appointment obtained by
fraudulent means is non est in the eyes of law.
In such circumstances, the individual never
acquires status of a government servant and
therefore cannot invoke the protection of Article
311 of the Constitution of India. Termination of
service in such cases wherein appointment has
been obtained by fraud is not a penalty
attracting requirement of regular departmental
inquiry but merely a declaration of the illegality
of very appointment itself. The plea that Article
311 mandates inquiry before cancellation of
such an appointment is wholly misconceived.
Accordingly, it is held that wherein an
appointment is obtained on the basis of fake or
forged certificates the employer is competent to
cancel the same without holding an inquiry
under Article 311 of the Constitution of India as
such, an incumbent cannot claim any
constitutional protection of tenure.

44. Considering the argument advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner in which
he has placed reliance on Smt. Parmi Maurya
(Supra), this Court finds that it is well
established that in case an employment has
been obtained based on fraudulent documents
beneficiary of such fraud cannot seek procedure
prescribed under the relevant rules or act as not
been followed for the purposes of inquiry. The
aforesaid has also been held in the case of
District Basic Education Officer Vs. Smt.
Punita Singh and 3 Ors.

45. The other grounds and issues as
argued by learned counsel for the petitioner
have been dealt by this Court in Writ-A No.
11846 of 2025 (Virendra Kumar Mishra Vs.
State of U.P. and 4 Ors.) as decided on
19.08.2025.

46. In view of aforesaid discussions, this
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 430
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ B No. 5902 of 1980

Tirath Raj & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
9 All. Tirath Raj & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
431
N. Lal, Ruduvant Pratap Singh, Yogesh
Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shankatha Rai

Issue for consideration
Whether there can be any interference in writ
jurisdiction in case of concurrent findings of all
authorities under consolidation proceedings?

Headnotes
A. Property Law - In case of concurrent
findings
of
all
authorities
under
consolidation proceedings, no interference
could be caused, except in exceptional
circumstances, such as, if the impugned order
was passed by an authority who does not have
jurisdiction to pass such order or the findings
are patently perverse. (Para 8)

In the present case, admittedly, Consolidation
Officer has not made an issue with regard to
validity of Will allegedly executed in favour of
petitioners. Only two issues, i.e., "whether name
of Kamla Kant alias Lallan was wrongly recorded
in Khata No. 40 and 130" and "what would be
the share of parties in land in dispute", were
framed. No objection was raised by petitioners
at relevant stage, i.e., before Consolidation
Officer and they have led evidence only on basis
of aforesaid two issues and accordingly the
Consolidation Officer passed order whereby
objections filed by petitioners were rejected.
(Para 9)

Admittedly, petitioners are not part of family of
Kadedeen, therefore, a doubt that said
Kadedeen could execute a Will in favour of
strangers, would be a natural doubt,
specifically when all three authorities
have returned a finding that family
members
of
Kadedeen
have
cordial
relations
amongst
each
other.
The
execution of Will, therefore, surrounds with
suspicious circumstances. (Para 10)

Surya Narain son of Kadedeen, died in 1945,
when Kadedeen was alive and in normal
circumstances it could not be believed that
Kadedeen
would
disassociate
his
minor
grandson, when there was no evidence that
there was uncordial relationship between father
and son. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has
also upheld said findings. Deputy Director of
Consolidation has considered the issue of Will at
length that it was dated 07.05.1951 and though
he referred that a 20 years old document, if
submitted from a genuine custody, could be
considered a genuine document, however, still a
finding was returned that petitioners have
failed to prove the Will in accordance with
law as well as upheld the suspicious
circumstances. (Para 11)

Aforesaid concurrent findings were based
on material and at this belated stage the
Court cannot reopen the issue of Will,
since all the authorities under Act, 1953
have put a doubt on the manner of
execution of Will, which are legally valid
also. (Para 12)

B. Admittedly petitioners have failed to
prove
Will
in
accordance
with
law,
therefore, no case of interference is made
out in the concurrent orders passed by all
three authorities under Act, 1953. (Para 14)

Consolidation proceedings were commenced in
the year 1977, i.e., 48 years ago and this writ
petition was filed against concurrent findings of
all three authorities under Act, 1953 in the year
1980, i.e., about 45 years ago. The prayer for
stay was already rejected by this Court,
therefore, at this stage even if the Court
considers argument of learned counsel for
petitioners that issue of Will could be decided,
however, the matter cannot be remitted to
Consolidation Officer. Otherwise also, the Court
is of the view that concurrent findings
cannot be disturbed since the same are
not perverse. (Para 13)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Krishnanand (dead) through Lrs and others
Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others,
(2015) 1 SCC 553 (Para 8)

2. Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic
Sciences and another Vs. Bikartan Das and
others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1996 (Para 8)
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Satish Chandra Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2023:AHC:233235 (Para 14)

List of Acts
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953

List of Keywords
Consolidation,
concurrent,
will,
doubt,
execution, interference.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: N. Lal, Ruduvant Pratap Singh,
Yogesh Kumar Tiwari
For Respondent: Shankatha Rai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. This writ petition is arising out of
consolidation
proceedings.
Petitioners
before this Court have lost before all the
three
authorities,
i.e.,
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation and Deputy Director of
Consolidation, under U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act, 1953").

2. Sri Ruduvant Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for petitioners, is not able to
dispute that scope of interference by High
Court in writ jurisdiction in the concurrent
findings
recorded
by
Consolidation
Authorities, is very limited, i.e., except the
findings are absolutely perverse.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that the petitioners' consistent
case was that they are owner of land in
dispute of the share of Kadedeen in Khata
No. 40 and 130, situate in Village Chati,
Pargana Garwara, District Jaunpur, through
a
registered
Will
dated
07.05.1951
executed by Kadedeen in favour of
petitioners. However, admittedly no such
issue was framed by Consolidation Officer
while considering the objections filed by
parties and, therefore, the Will was not
proved in accordance with law. He further
submitted that in appeal petitioners have
specifically taken the plea about execution
of Will, however, without taking note of
such grounds and without framing any
issue in this regard, Settlement Officer of
Consolidation
has
rejected
claim
of
petitioners on basis of Will. For reference
relevant part of order dated 24.01.1979
passed
by
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation is reproduced hereinafter:

"कडेदीन द्वारा चलखा गया वसीयतनामा पत्रावली पर
उपलब्ध है चजसके हाचसये के गवाह केदार नाथ चनवासी मनकापुर
तथा बासुदेव चतवारी चनवासी बक्खोपुर के है। इससे स्पष्ट है चक गांव
का एक भी गवाह वसीयतनामा पर नहीं है। और यह वसीयत नामा
गांव वालों से चछपाकर िुपके से चलखाया गया है चजससे चक इस
वसीयत नामा को कडेदीन की कायभवाही गांव के चकसी व्ययचि को न
हो सके यह भी संदेह है चक इस वसीयतनामा को कडेदीन ने चलखा
या नहीं कडेदीन के जीवनकाल में ही उसका लडका सूयभ नरायन की
मृत्यु हो गई। नाबाचलग पोता कमलाकान्त के जीने का कोई सहारा
नहीं था उसका ख्याल न करते हुये कडेदीन ने तीथभराज आचद के हक
में अपने आराजी का वसीयत कर चदया जब चक तीथभ राज के चपता
सत्यानरायन भी जीचवत थे चकसी दादा से इस प्रकार की आशा नहीं
की जा सकती चक अपने नाबाचलग पोतो को छोडकर दूसरे पोतो को
तनहा जमीन वसीयत कर दे कडेदीन के मरने के बाद आराजी चनजाई
पर कमला कान्त व तीथभराज आचद दोनो का नाम वरासतन दजभ
हुआ। उस समय भी तीथभराज आचद ने इस बात की कोई आपचत्त
चकया चक जररया वसीयत वह कडेदीन के वाररस है। देव नरायन व
सीताराम आचद ने कडेदीन आचद पर यू०पी० चर्नेन्सी ऐक्र् की धारा
59 के अन्तगभत चदनांक 03.12.49 को दावा दाचखल चकया
चजसका चनणभय चदनांक 05.11.52 को हुआ। यह मुकदमा माननीय
अदालत राजस्व पररषद तक िला जहां पक्षों के बीि सुलह हुआ।
उस मुकदमें में कडेदीन मृतक के स्थान पर तीथभराज आचद बनाम
कमलाकान्त उफभ कल्लन नाबाचलग पुत्र सूयभ नरायन वाररस बताये
गये तथा कमला कान्त को नाबाचलग के वली व कारपरदाज तीथभ
राज ने सुलहनामा कमलाकान्त कारपरदाज की हैचसयत से सुलहनामा
पर हस्ताक्षर चकया है इस दफा 59 के मुकदमें में भी उन्होने चजि
नहीं चकया गया। अपील कताभ गण की जानकारी में नाम कमलाकान्त
का खाता में दजभ िला आ रहा है उसी के अनुसार आराजी चनजाई
पर उनका कब्जा है। 1953 से अब तक वसीयतनामा के आधार
पर अपना नाम दजभ करने की कोई कायभवाही नहीं की गई। इससे स्पष्ट
है चक अपीलकताभ गण को 1953 के वाद ही वसीयत के जररया
9 All. Tirath Raj & Ors. Vs. D.D.C. & Ors.
433
अपना नाम दजभ कराना िाचहये था यचद उन लोगो ने अपने साथ
कमला कान्त को भी कडेदनी का वसीयत नामा तथा 1953 से
अब तक कमलाकान्त उनके साथ बतौर सहखातेदारो दजभ िला आ
रहा है तो आज अपीलकताभ गण यह कहने के हकदार नहीं है चक
कमला कान्त का नाम खाता में गलत दजभ है वे स्र्ापुल तथा
एक्युलेन्स के चसिान्त से बाचधत है। ि०अ० ने अपीलकताभ गण की
आपचत्त खाररज करने में त्रुचर् नहीं की है।" (Emphasis
supplied)

4. Learned counsel further submitted
that
in
revision
said
objection
was
reiterated, however, on similar grounds
revision of petitioners was dismissed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 19.02.1980 and relevant part
thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

"7- सूयभ नरायन की मृत्यु चदनांक 10.4.43 को
हुई। पक्षो मान्य है चक कडेदीन की मृत्यु 1953 में हुई। और
चनगरानी कताभ के चपता सत्य नरायन की मृत्यु 1956 में हुई। इस
प्रकार वसीयत के चनष्ट्पादन के साक्ष्य समय सत्य नरायन जीचवत थे
पत्रावली पर यह भी चसि है चक कमलाकान्त का जन्म 1942 में हुआ
थे और वसीयत के चनष्ट्पादन के समय वह भी जीचवत था और नाबाचलग
था कमलाकान्त चदनांक 01.07.1952 के पूवभ पैदा हुआ था और
इसचलये पररवार की सब संयुि सम्पचत्त में उनके चनचहत अचधकार थे
वसीयत की इबारत में कडेदीन द्वारा यह चलखा गया है चक उनके सत्य
नरायन व सूयभनरायन थे यह उल्लेख वसीयतनामा में कडेदीन ने चलखा है
चक वसीयत में लाभाथी के अचतररि उसके लडके सत्य नरायन और पूवभ
मृतक पुत्र के कमला कान्त जीचवत थे वसीयत में चहब्बेनामें से प्राि
जायदाद व संयुि पररवार की मौरूसी जायदाद को कतई अलग अलग
नहीं बयान चकया गया है। इस उल्लेख से जाचहर होता है चक वसीयत
चबल्कुल फजी है और अमान्य है। इसके चवपरीत उत्तरवाचदयों ने दो एक
पत्र काफी पुराने प्रस्तुत चकये है चजसमें सत्य नरायन और कमलाकान्त के
आपसी सम्बन्ध की ििाभ है जो एक पररचस्थचत गत साक्ष्य है चजसमें यह
पुचष्ट होता है चक पररवार सदैव संयुि रहा है और सारी सम्पचत्त का इसी
तरह से प्रयोग हुआ है इसके अचतररि एक बात और भी उल्लेखनीय है
चक चववाचदत सम्पचत्त में 165, 176 आचद ऐसी भूचम होती है जो
दचखल कारी सीरदारी थी चजनका न चहब्बा नामा हो सकता था न ही
वसीयत हो सकती थी।" (Emphasis supplied)

5. Learned counsel further submitted
that Settlement Officer of Consolidation as
well as Deputy Director of Consolidation,
both have committed error that matter
ought to have been remitted back to
Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order
after framing issue on validity of Will,
however, it was not done. He also
submitted that without specific pleadings
on
the
issue,
both
authorities,
i.e.,
Settlement Officer of Consolidation and
Deputy Director of Consolidation, have
made comments disputing execution of
Will. No opportunity was granted to
petitioners to prove the Will in accordance
with law.

6. None appeared on behalf of
respondents despite a notice was issued by
this Court and on basis of office report
dated 15.05.2022 this Court vide order
dated 17.08.2022 found that service upon
respondents was sufficient.

7. I have considered the above
submissions and perused the record.

8. As already referred that the in case
of concurrent findings of all authorities
under
consolidation
proceedings,
no
interference could be caused, except in
exceptional circumstances, such as, if the
impugned order was passed by an authority
who does not have jurisdiction to pass
such order or the findings are patently
perverse. In this regard, the Court takes
note of judgments passed Supreme Court
in Krishnanand (dead) through Lrs
and others vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation and others, (2015) 1
SCC 553 and Central Council for
Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and
another vs. Bikartan Das and others,
2023 SCC Online SC 1996. Relevant
paragraphs
of
said
judgments
are
mentioned hereinafter:

Krishnanand (supra):
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"12.
The
High
Court
has
committed an error in reversing the
findings of fact arrived at by the authorities
below in coming to the conclusion that
there was a partition. No doubt, the High
Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a
settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot
be
exercised
for
re-appreciating
the
evidence and arrival of findings of facts
unless the authority which passed the
impugned order does not have jurisdiction
to render the finding or has acted in excess
of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently
perverse. In the present case, though the
High
Court
reversed
the
concurrent
findings of the authorities below and came
to the opposite conclusion on matter of
facts, the High Court did not do so on the
ground that the authorities below acted in
excess of their jurisdiction or without
jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by
perversity.

13. We are of the view that the
High Court ought not to have entered into
re-appreciation of evidence and reversed
the findings of fact arrived at by the three
authorities below, especially since, the
authorities had neither exceeded their
jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High
Court has no where stated that it was of the
view that there is any perversity, much less
the High Court failed to demonstrate any
such circumstances."

Central Council for Research in
Ayurvedic Sciences (supra):

"65. Thus, from the various
decisions referred to above, we have no
hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a
writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ
and should not be issued on mere asking. For
the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party
concerned has to make out a definite case for
the same and is not a matter of course. To put
it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct
errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence,
excess or failure to exercise and also when in
the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there
has been illegality. It shall also issue to
correct an error in the decision or
determination itself, if it is an error manifest
on the face of the proceedings. By its
exercise, only a patent error can be corrected
but not also a wrong decision. It should be
well remembered at the cost of repetition that
certiorari
is
not
appellate
but
only
supervisory.

66. A writ of certiorari, being a
high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior
court in respect of the exercise of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions by another authority
when the contention is that the exercising
authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the
jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the
tribunals or the authorities concerned in this
batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal
with the matter. However, the argument would
be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and
illegally and that they had failed to give
proper findings on the facts and circumstances
of the case. We may only say that while
adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of
certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of
appeal against the order of the tribunals to test
the legality thereof with a view to reach a
different conclusion. If there is any evidence,
the court will not examine whether the right
conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a wellestablished principle of law that a writ of
certiorari will not lie where the order or
decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in
matter of facts or on merits. [See : King v. Nat
Bell Liquors Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128 (PC)]"

9. In the present case, admittedly,
Consolidation Officer has not made an
9 All. Jitendra Pratap Singh Vs. Upsanchalak Chakbandi Sultanpur Camp Lucknow & Ors.
435
issue with regard to validity of Will
allegedly executed in favour of petitioners.
Only two issues, i.e., "whether name of Kamla
Kant alias Lallan was wrongly recorded in
Khata No. 40 and 130" and "what would be
the share of parties in land in dispute", were
framed. No objection was raised by petitioners
at relevant stage, i.e., before Consolidation
Officer and they have led evidence only on
basis of aforesaid two issues and accordingly
the Consolidation Officer passed order
whereby objections filed by petitioners were
rejected.

10. Admittedly, petitioners are not part of
family of Kadedeen, therefore, a doubt that
said Kadedeen could execute a Will in favour
of strangers, would be a natural doubt,
specifically when all three authorities have
returned a finding that family members of
Kadedeen have cordial relations amongst each
other. The execution of Will, therefore,
surrounds with suspicious circumstances.

11. Surya Narain son of Kadedeen, died
in 1945, when Kadedeen was alive and in
normal circumstances it could not be believed
that Kadedeen would disassociate his minor
grandson, when there was no evidence that
there was uncordial relationship between
father and son. Settlement Officer of
Consolidation has also upheld said findings.
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
has
considered the issue of Will at length that it
was dated 07.05.1951 and though he referred
that a 20 years old document, if submitted
from a genuine custody, could be considered a
genuine document, however, still a finding
was returned that petitioners have failed to
prove the Will in accordance with law as well
as upheld the suspicious circumstances.

12. Aforesaid concurrent findings were
based on material and at this belated stage the
Court cannot reopen the issue of Will, since all
the authorities under Act, 1953 have put a
doubt on the manner of execution of Will,
which are legally valid also.

13.
Consolidation
proceedings
were
commenced in the year 1977, i.e., 48 years ago
and this writ petition was filed against concurrent
findings of all three authorities under Act, 1953
in the year 1980, i.e., about 45 years ago. The
prayer for stay was already rejected by this
Court, therefore, at this stage even if the Court
considers argument of learned counsel for
petitioners that issue of Will could be decided,
however, the matter cannot be remitted to
Consolidation Officer. Otherwise also, the Court
is of the view that concurrent findings cannot be
disturbed since the same are not perverse.

14. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by this Court in Satish
Chandra Sharma vs. State of U.P. and
others,
2023:AHC:233235
wherein
the
manner to prove a Will was discussed at length
and since admittedly petitioners have failed to
prove Will in accordance with law, therefore,
also no case of interference is made out in the
concurrent orders passed by all three authorities
under Act, 1953.

15. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 435
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 12083 of 2019

Jitendra Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Upsanchalak Chakbandi Sultanpur Camp
Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents