JUDGMENT Mohd. Asif Ansari, J. 1. THE dispute relates to bhumidhari plot No. 1377/2, 3 Bighas, 13 biswas and 9 biswansis situate in vill. Tekari Sahan, perg. Rokha, tah. Salon, Distt. Rae Bareli. THE petitioners before this Court preferred a mutation application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for mutation of their names on the allegation that they purchased the land in dispute from the opposite party No. 4. By order dated 28-4-70 the Consolidation Officer Nazirabad, Distt. Rae Bareli ordered the mutation in favour of the petitioners over the plot in dispute instead of Opp. party No. 4 on the basis of a sale deed executed by Opp. party No. 4 through his natural guardian in favour of the petitioners which was dated 9-9-1968. THE alleged natural guardian was Budhai who claims to be the uncle of Opp. party No. 4. Opposite party No. 4 through opposite party No. 2 had preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who dismissed the same on 16-11-70 holding that the appellants had no locus standi to represent the minor. Raghubir Opp. party No. 4 filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation through Opp. party No. 2 which was allowed by him by order dated 24-2-71 relying on the authority reported in Mohd. Sohrab Khan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. 1970 AWR 78 in which it was held that transfer of share of a minor in agricultural land by a guardian is prohibited. It is also further held in this authority that there is no provision in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act dealing with the subject with which Sec. 11 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 deals. That provision would, therefore, prevail and on this basis the revision was allowed. 2. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following points in support of his case. That the Opp. party No. 2 without filing an objection u/Sec. 9 could not file an appeal to the Settlement Officer Consolidation because he would not be a party to the proceedings which is necessary under the amended section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. That the Opp. party No. 2 without filing an objection u/Sec. 9 could not file an appeal to the Settlement Officer Consolidation because he would not be a party to the proceedings which is necessary under the amended section 11 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. HIS second argument was that the opposite party No. 2 was not recorded as tenure-holder as a minor and, therefore, Rule 14 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act does not come into operation and for this he relied upon a decision of this Court in Sheo Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1967 RD page 4. He has not made any submission on the authority that had been cited by the Deputy Director nor has challenged the legal view taken by the revisionist. The counsel for the respondent has contended that a minor property has been inherited by one who has no right to do the same. In any view of the matter as justice had been done no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am bound by the view taken in the decision reported in 1970 AWR 78 (supra) and therefore dismiss this writ petition. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is correct. Nothing has been said by the petitioner against this authority. 4. IN the result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed but I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.