JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. In the basic year record the dispute land was entered in the names of Badal, Faseh Mohammad and Khalilsons of Saidulla, Rahman son of Bahraichi, and Shubrati son of Walidin, opposite parties. The petitioner filed an objection claiming half share W the disputeland on the ground that it belonged to her father Ali Raza, who had obtained a bhumidhari Sanad in his exclusive name and thereafter he admitted the opposite parties as cosharers, and according to the case of the petitioner, this admission was in respect of half share and half belonged to her father and after his death it devolved upon her. The claim was contested on the ground that she was not daughter of Ali Raza. The, petitioner examined number of witnesses and also filed will dated 16.2.55 said to have been executed by Ali Raza in favour of the petitioner, her daughter and the Bhumidhari Sanad in the name of Ali Raza. None of the opposite parties examined himself but examined another person Maqbool as a witness. 2. The Consolidation Officer, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Ali Raza died about sixteen or seventeen years ago and held that the petitioner was in possession and her share was 1/6. This finding was recorded by the Consolidation Officer after accepting due execution of the will. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer an appeal was filed by Shubrati and another appeal was filed by the petitioner. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, held' that the petitioner though was daughter of Ali Raza, but being married daughter she was not preferential heir and brother will get share of Ali Raza. The will was rejected on the ground that no reference of the will in the objection was made. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who held Zaibunnisa to be the daughter of Ali Raza, but he was of the view that as she was married, she was not preferential heir. 3. The opposite parties put in appearance but no counteraffidavit has been filed on their behalf. 3. The opposite parties put in appearance but no counteraffidavit has been filed on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the will could not have been rejected on the ground that, reference of. it was not made in the objection. The petitioner claimed half share over the Khata in dispute on the ground that Ali Raza's share was half. Merely because there was no reference of the will in the objection, the will could not have been rejected. The will was taken into consideration by the Consolidation Officer who rather held that the same was proved and as such if there was will by Ali Raza in favour of her daughter she became ei titled to get share in place of her father. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 27.3.76 (A nexure3) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and; he is directed to restore the revision application to its original number and hear and decide the same after taking into consideration the will said to have been executed by Ali Raza if he finds that the same hasbeen proved. No order as to costs. (Petition allowed)