JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. It appears that in the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of one Ram Jiyawan Two separate objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act one by the petitioners and the other by respondent no. 4 were filed claiming his succession. While the petitioners claimed themselves to be the real brothers of Ram Jiyawan respondent no. 4 claimed herself to be his widow. Petitioners moved an application before the consolidation officer stating that they have already been mutated in revenue records in place of the deceased Ram Jiyawan with respect to land situate in village Majhuwa and as such this objection was not legally maintainable which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 29-8-1985 and they were directed to be mutated in revenue records. Respondent no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was allowed on 12-9-1985 and the Consolidation Officer was directed to decide the objections filed by the parties afresh on merits after affording proper opportunity to lead evidence. Petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed on 17-2-1986, 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions before me. His first contention is that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer regarding the land of village Majhuwa will operate as res judicata in the present proceedings and the second contention is that respondent no. 4 was not legally entitled for fresh opportunity for leading evidence. I do not find substance in either of the two contentions. From the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that a revision filed by respondent no. 4 against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is still, pending before him but even assuming-that the said order has become final it will not operate as res judicata in those proceedings, in as much as neither the petitioner was a party to those proceedings nor her claim to succeed deceased Ram Jiyawan was adjudicated upon. As a matter of fact the Assistant Consolidation Officer does not possess jurisdiction to decide the contested matter under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. As a matter of fact the Assistant Consolidation Officer does not possess jurisdiction to decide the contested matter under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Petitioners were directed to be mutated in the revenue records in places of deceased Ram Jiyawan with respect to land situate in village Majhuwa behind the back of respondent no. 4 without any contest. 4. Under Section 171 of the U.P.Z. & L.R. Act respondent no. 4 who claims herself to be widow of deceased Ram Jiyawan is a preferential heir and the petitioners could succeed only on their proving that she was not his widow. This point was neither raised nor decided in those proceedings. It will not be out of place to point out that no copy of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was filed before the Consolidation authorities. Merely a copy of C.H. Form 5 containing reference to the said order was filed which was wholly insufficient for holding that claim of respondent no. 4 was barred by res judicata. 5. So far as the claim of the petitioners that the parties were afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence and, as such, there was no justification for affording fresh opportunity to respondent no. 4 the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have rightly held that the Consolidation Officer had not afforded any opportunity to respondent no. 4 to lead evidence and decided the case in favour of petitioners only on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.