JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda Camp at Mahoba allowing revision setting aside order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Mahoba dated 12.8.2002 and affirming order of Consolidation Officer dated 13.3.1991.
2. Dispute relates to Khata No. 163, 1213, 232, and 327 recorded in the name of Brij Rani widow of Devi Singh in the final consolidation record. Two sets of objection under Section 12 were filed, one by petitioners relying upon will dated 23.6.198l and other by contesting opposite parties who relied upon a will dated 22.8.1984. Both contesting opposite parties prayed for mutating their names on the basis of their respective wills. Consolidation Officer found will dated 22.8.1984 proved and passed an order on 13.3.1991 of mutation of contesting respondents as in place of deceased Smt. Brij Rani on the basis of the aforesaid will and Consolidation Officer further found will dated 23.6.1981 not proved.
3. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed, Settlement Officer Consolidation found that will dated 22.8.1984 was not acceptable on various grounds including that death of Brij Rani had taken place on 1.8.1984 and she could not execute the will dated 22.8.1984. Settlement Officer Consolidation by reversing the order passed by Consolidation Officer directed that petitioners' name to be recorded as tenure holder.
4. Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and maintained the order passed by Consolidation Officer.
5. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for caveator.
6. From perusal of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation it transpires that it has recorded two findings firstly, the Brij Rani died on 1.9.1984 and secondly, the will relied upon by contesting opposite parties is proved from the evidence on record. Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered number of other materials, facts and circumstances and found that will of petitioners is unacceptable due to suspicious circumstances. Petitioners are not related to Smt. Brij Rani. Opposite parties are sons of younger brother of husband of late Brij Rani. Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly believed will dated 22.8.1984 executed by Smt. Brij Rani in favour of contesting opposite party, which is proved beyond suspicious circumstances. All relevant aspects were considered while refusing to accept petitioners' will by Deputy Director of Consolidation and accepting the will relied upon by opposite parties.
7. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that Execution and attestation of the will relied upon by opposite parties is not proved in accordance with law and finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Brij Rani died on 1.9.1984 is not supported by any evidence.
8. Petitioner counsel was asked to refer the pleading in the writ petition in support of his oral arguments but learned Counsel for petitioner could not point out a single paragraph in the writ petition where the petitioner has challenged the findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation that will in favour of contesting opposite parties is proved.
9. In view of the discussion made above, as there is no specific pleading in the writ petition challenging the findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the oral argument raised by learned Counsel for petitioner cannot be entertained. Apex Court has considered this matter in which is quoted below.
In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may he, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to he pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts hut also the evidence in proof of such facts have to he pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable.
10. On consideration of the entire material on record, this Court is of the view that the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the law.
11. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.