JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, in mutation case. 2. The facts are briefly that on April 28, 1972 Smt. Rajpati and Smt. Droptai filed a mutation report under Section 34 of L.R. Act for substitution in place of Paramdei, widow of Lagan, on the basis of succession Subsequently they also filed an alleged will claimed to have been executed by the deceased on January 15, 1966. To this an objection was filed by Ram Adhare, the present revisionist, who claimed mutation on the basis of succession as brother of Lagan. After hearing the parties the learned trial court allowed mutation on the basis of the Will. An appeal against this order was dismissed by the learned S.D.O. Pharenda, district Gorakhpur. 3. A revision against the orders of the lower courts has been recommended for acceptance by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur who has taken note of the fact that litigation had taken place between the parties before Consolidation courts wherein it had been held that Ram Adhare was the preferential heir and Smt. Dropati and Smt. Rajpati were married daughters at the time of the death of Paramdei. He has also pointed out that before the enactment of Act XXX of 1975, a woman inheriting property as widow could not execute a Will and since both the alleged execution of the Will and the death of Smt. Paramdei took place before 1975, the Will was invalid and no mutation could be allowed on its basis. 4. I have gone through the file and heard arguments on both sides. 5. Learned counsel for opposite parties has argued that Paramdei died in 1976 and not before 1975 and therefore, the Will must be deemed to be valid. 6. The argument is without force as a judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation Gorakhpur dated May 30, 1970 clearly mentions the facts that Paramdei was dead and also that Smt. Rajpati and Dropati were married daughters. This is clear proof of the fact that Paramdei had died before June 2, 1970 and not in 1976 as claimed by opposite parties. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that even if litigation had taken place before consolidation authorities between the parties. This is clear proof of the fact that Paramdei had died before June 2, 1970 and not in 1976 as claimed by opposite parties. 7. Learned counsel has further argued that even if litigation had taken place before consolidation authorities between the parties. Rajpati and Dropati were minors at the time and no legal guardians had been appointed to represent them in the litigation. Such appointment was mandatory under rule 14 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and he has cited a ruling of the then learned Member of the Board of Revenue reported in 1979 R.D. 182 in support of the contention that if compliance of Rule 14 had not been made by Consolidation Authorities the bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act would not apply and the revenue courts would have jurisdiction to re-open the matter. 8. I have studied the ruling carefully. With all respect I find myself unable to agree with the view taken therein that - the finality of adjudication of rights made by the Consolidation authorities applies only in cases where the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules made thereunder are complied with and not otherwise. Where there is any conspicuous failure on the part of the Consolidation authorities to act in accordance with the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the rules framed thereunder no such finality can be attached to their decision." 9. To accept the view taken in ruling cited would mean that a revenue court would have authority to sit in judgment to aver judicial decision of consolidation courts. This would open the flood-gates of litigation by enabling interested parties to allege all kinds of irregularities committed by consolidation courts and compel revenue courts to re-open all cases of adjudication by these authorities. 10. I therefore, hold that the bar of Section 49 of C.H. Act would apply to the mutation report moved by Smt. Rajpati and Smt. Dropati. The judgment of the learned lower courts are set aside and the revision allowed. Mutation shall be ordered in favour of the revisionist, Ram Adharey.