ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the disputed land was tenancy of Nawal Singh. Nawal Singh's father Lal Singh had two wives :- the present petitioner Smt. Tanto and Smt. Gomti. The disputed land was shown in the name of Nawal Singh and after him, his widow Smt. Bhudevi,'On the death of Smt. Bhudevi, the petitioner's name was mutated over the disputed land. Due to this circumstance the contesting opp. party 4 Smt. Moharwati Devi, being daughter of Nawal Singh, brought a suit under S. 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act claiming tenancy right. 2. The present petitioner contested the suit on the allegations that she was mother of Nawal Singh, hence she was entitled to the tenancy of the aforesaid Nawal Singh and her name was rightly mutated and that in her presence the opp. party 4 has no concern with the disputed land. 3. All the revenue courts have given judgments against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and has prayed for quashing the judgments of the revenue courts. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding of fact recorded by the revenue courts to the effect that the petitioner is step mother of Nawal Singh. He has emphasised that the petitioner. even being step mother of Nawal Singh, is entitled to the disputed land and has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1968 All LJ 484 Smt. Ram Katori v. Smt. Prakashwati. 5. In the present case it has not been disputed that Smt. Bhudevi died after the enforcement of the Act No. 1 of 1951. On her death succession opened and it has to be seen as to whether the petitioner being step mother of Nawal Singh would inherit the disputed property or the contesting opp. party 4 being daughter of Nawal Singh would be entitled to the property in dispute. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid ruling has interpreted the provisions of S. 15(1) read with S. 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereas the present case will be governed by the provisions of S.: 171 of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act. 6. The aforesaid ruling has interpreted the provisions of S. 15(1) read with S. 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereas the present case will be governed by the provisions of S.: 171 of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act. 6. However, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that she being step-mother of`the last male tenure holder is entitled to the property in dispute can be supported by a decision reported in 1976 RD. (2) page 298 Mool Chand v. Smt. Khema etc. A learned single Member of the Board of Revenue, U. P. has interpreted the provisions of S. 171(b) of U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act and has come to the following conclusion : "..... As, however, seen above, this is not the correct view of law. The widow of the father is clearly entitled to succession irrespective of the fact whether she is the mother or the step mother of the son." 7. In my opinion the aforesaid decision does not lay down the correct law. 7A. In 1979 Rev Dec 231 : (1979 All LJ 188) Smt. Jokhna v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. Rae-Bareli a learned Single Judge of this Court has interpreted the provisions of S. 171(b) of the U. P. Z. A. and L.R. Act and has observed as below : "......... From the scheme of the Act (it?) is thus clear that wherever the word `mother' was used by the Legislature in S. 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition Act, it meant own mother and not `step-mother'. Sec. 171(b) of the Act used the word `widowed mother' which means none else than one's own mother who may even be adoptive mother who is a widow and not a 'step-mother' who is a widow. In some cases it will create a hardship but for that Legislature alone can make the necessary amendments.". 8. Looking to the provisions of Tenancy Laws in this State on the question of devolution it is amply clear that the Legislature knew the difference between "mother" and "step-mother", yet it has failed to provide for step-mother in : clear language. I am unable to hold that the impugned judgments suffer from any patent error of law, when they did not recognise the claim of the petitioner, who had wrongly claimed the disputed property as real mother of last male tenure holder Nawal Singh. I am unable to hold that the impugned judgments suffer from any patent error of law, when they did not recognise the claim of the petitioner, who had wrongly claimed the disputed property as real mother of last male tenure holder Nawal Singh. On the finding of fact she being step mother of Nawal Singh is not at all entitled to the property in dispute. 9. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.