JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J.- 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the prayer is that the order dated 22-7-89 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), the order dated 18-12-84 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 30-3-81 passed by the Consolidation Officer may be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass and they are these. One Bhujbal was the Sir and Khudkasht holder. He gifted his Sir and Khudkasht land contained in the plots in dispute (khata nos. 394 and 105) in village Adta, Pargana Garotha, district Jhansi in favour of Smt. Mahrani. In the basic year the petitioner Pholl Kunwar and respondent no. 4 Nanoo Singh were recorded as co-bhumidhars to the extent of 1/2 share. An objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act was filed by the petitioner claiming the sole bhumidari rights on the averment that one Bhujbal was the Sir and Khudkasht holder who executed the gift deed in favour of Smt. Maharani, his daughter-in-law before the date of vesting. Smt. Maharani died in 1943 before the date of vesting and after her death the petitioner as her daughter and Smt. Lalla Beti, another daughter of Smt. Maharani, sister of the petitioner, inherited the interest of Smt. Maharani as his daughter and after the death of Lalla Beti on 30-11-52 after the date of vesting, her interest was inherited by her son Veer Singh and after his death the same was inherited by his son Haiku Singh and thereafter by his son Nanoo Singh, respondent no. 4. The petitioner's case was that after the death of Lalla Beti her interest would devolve on her sister Smt. Phool Kunwar, the petitioner and would not be inherited by her son (son Lalla Beti). As Smt. Lalla Beti was the limited owner and consequently the name of respondent no. 4 may be expunged and that of the petitioner may be recorded as sole bhumidar. It was also urged that there was a suit for partition which was pending between the parties, but the same was abated on account of notification under section 4 of the Act. 4 may be expunged and that of the petitioner may be recorded as sole bhumidar. It was also urged that there was a suit for partition which was pending between the parties, but the same was abated on account of notification under section 4 of the Act. The respondents contested the case set up by the petitioner and alleged that as Smt. Maharani has obtained the Sir and Kudkasht land on the basis of gift deed executed by Bhujbal, the Sir and Khudkasht holder, she became the independent owner and was not a limited owner as she did not inherit it, rather she got it by gift deed and this property was her self acquired property and in any case she died in 1943 and her interest was inherited by the petitioner and her sister Smt. Lalla Beti and after the death of latter by her son Veer Singh and after his death by his son Haiku Singh and thereafter by Nanoo Singh, respondent no. 4, his son. When Smt. Lalla Beti acquired interest as co-sharer alongwith his sister Smt. Phool Kunwar, the petitioner, neither the U.P. ZA and LR Act nor the Hindu Succession Act had come into force. But at the time of the death of Smt. Lalla Beti on 30-11-52 both the Acts, namely U.P. ZA and LR Act and the Hindu Succession Act had come into force, hence she became the absolute owner and bhumidhar and did not remain limited owner or limited Bhumidar, After her death, her interest would devolve on her son Veer Singh, and it would not be inherited by her sister Smt. Phool Kunwar, her sister, and after the death of Veer Singh his son Haiku and thereafter his son Nanoo Singh, respondent no. 4 would inherit the same. In any case by estoppel and acquiescence respondent no. 4 became the co-bhumidar alongwith Smt. Phool Kunwar. As since the death of Smt. Lalla Beti no suit for ejectment was tiled by the petitioner, and Smt. Lalla Beti remained in possession and thereafter her son, grand son and great grand son continued in peaceful possession and the petitioner accepted the interest of respondent no. 4, as his predecessor-in-interest, the objection of petitioner was liable to be dismissed. 3. The consolidation officer rejected the claim of the petitioner, who unsuccessfully went in appeal and also in revision. 4, as his predecessor-in-interest, the objection of petitioner was liable to be dismissed. 3. The consolidation officer rejected the claim of the petitioner, who unsuccessfully went in appeal and also in revision. The present petition has been filed against these orders. On 15-11-89 the petitioner was dismissed and reasons were to follow. Now these are the detailed reasons. 4. Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Smt. Lalla Beti was the limited owner and after her death her interest would devolve on her sister, the petitioner and thereafter the same would not be inherited by Smt. Lalla Beti's son Veer Singh and thereafter by his son Haiku and thereafter by his son Nanoo Singh, the respondent no. 4. As Smt. Lalla Beti inherited the interest before the date of vesting, after her death succession would be governed by Section 172 and not by Section 174 of the U.P. ZA and LR Act as Smt. Lalla Beti was not the full fledged owner nor a bhumidar in her own rights. In order to determine the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner the provisions of Section 172 (2) of the U.P. ZA and LR Act may be extracted as follows, to the extent it is relevant : "172 (2) Where a bhumidar who has before the date of vesting inherited an interest in any holding as a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male lineal of descent, mother, daughter, father's mother, son's daughter sister or half sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased- (a) dies, and such bhumidar was on the date immediately before the said date an intermediary of the land comprised in the holding or held the holding as a fixed rate tenant, or an exproprietary or occupancy tenant in Avadh or as a tenant on special terms in Avadh and- (i) she was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to a life state only in the holding, the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving their (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male intermediary or tenant aforesaid " 5. What is to be high lighted is that the legislature was conscious in providing, the consequences where a bhumidar, who has before the date of vesting inherited an interest in any holding as a widow. In the present case Smt. Lalla Beti predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 4 did not inherit any interest in the holding, rather her mother has obtained Sir and Khudkasht on the basis of a gift deed executed by her father-in-law Bhujbal and Smt. Maharani died in 1943 and her interest was inherited by the petitioner, and her sister Smt. Lalla Beti, predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 4. Consequently it could not be said that Smt. Lalla Beti inherited the interest as a widow, rather she succeeded to the interest of her mother alongwith the petitioner. At the time Smt. Lalla Beti inherited the interest in 1943 neither U.P. ZA and LR Act, 1950, had come into force, nor Hindu Succession Act has been enforced. But when she died on 30-11-1952 both the Acts had come into force. In fact by virtue of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 18 and other provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act or by section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act Smt. Lalla Beti became full fledged owner and she did not remain limited owner. Consequently after her death her interest would be inherited by her son Veer Singh. 6. As Smt. Lalla Beti was not a limited owner as provided under Section 172 (2) her interest would be governed by Section 174, hence after her death succession would be governed by section 174 of the UP ZA and LR Act which provides as follows :- "174. 6. As Smt. Lalla Beti was not a limited owner as provided under Section 172 (2) her interest would be governed by Section 174, hence after her death succession would be governed by section 174 of the UP ZA and LR Act which provides as follows :- "174. Succession to a woman holding an interest otherwise : When a bhumidhar or asami (other than bhumidhar or asami mentioned in Section 171 or 172) who is a woman dies, her interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below :- (a) son, son's son, son's son's son, widow and predeceased sons predeceased son's widow in equal share per strip." As Smt. Lalla Beti did not inherit the interest under Section 171 nor her case was covered by Section 172 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act, hence her case would be governed by Section 174 of UP ZA and LR Act and after her death on 30-11-52 her interest would devolve upon her son Veer Singh and the same would not devolve on her sister, the present petitioner. 7. In Bishwanath Pandey v. Badami Kaur, AIR 1980 SC 1329 , it was contended that Smt. Badami herself has admitted before the date of vesting that she was in possession on the basis of not as a legal owner, rather her name was mutated just by way of conciliation with no right in the property and thereafter it was argued and held by a Division Bench of this court on 3-2-69 dismissing the writ petition that as she herself has admitted that her possession was by way of concilation and not as a rightful owner, hence after her death her interest would devolve upon her collateral, namely the respondent. The matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and it was observed as follows :- "This statement was made at a time when neither the UP ZA and LR Act was passed nor the Hindu Succession Act came into force. At the time when the matter was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation both the Acts had been passed which conferred absolute proprietary right on Smt. Badami Kaur who is still alive. At the time when the matter was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation both the Acts had been passed which conferred absolute proprietary right on Smt. Badami Kaur who is still alive. One Smt. Badami Kaur became an obsolute owner of the property, the respondent's interest as collateral ceased to exist and they had, therefore, no locus standi to challenge the status of Smt. Badami Kaur, The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, proceeded on a totally erroneous view of law in holding that Smt. Badami Kaur had merely a life interest and the property should go to the respondents who were the col laterals." 8. In Ram Jeewan v. Smt. Phoola, 1976 SC 844, where the controversy was as to whether the succession would be governed by section 172 or 174 of the Act, and it was held at page 851 under para 10 as follows :- "It is manifest therefore that in order to determine the applicability of section 172 of the Abolition Act we must go to the origine of the title of the Bhumidhar or the mam source from which the Bhumidhar has derived interest in the holding. It may be pertinent to note here that the statute uses the word "the holding or the part shall devolved" to denote that if it if found that a widow has inherited an interest in the holding from her husband then it is holding that devolves and not interest of the widow which ceased after her death. Thus, the statute seeks to make a clear cut distinction between a widow who has inherited an interest from her husband which is dealt by section 172 of the Abolition Act and a widow who has acquired an independent interest in the holding which is covered by section 174 of the Abolition Act. The High Court appears to have over looked the fact that merely because Smt. Menda having initially inherited possession or occupation of the holding from her husband acquired other types of interest merely by operation of law, that could not destroy the origin or the source of her title which was inheritance from her husband. The High Court appears to have over looked the fact that merely because Smt. Menda having initially inherited possession or occupation of the holding from her husband acquired other types of interest merely by operation of law, that could not destroy the origin or the source of her title which was inheritance from her husband. Nor can be regard the confirment of the status of a statutory tenant or a hereditary tenant or a bhumidhar under the various laws passed by the U. P. Legislature as amounting to an acquisition of self-acquired interest by the widow." In view of the aforesaid interpretation placed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on Sections 172 and 174 the interest of the limited owner prior to the date of vesting in other words, a widow might have inherited her interest as a limited owner before the date of vesting, but subsequent to the passing of the UP ZA and LR Act and the Hindu Succession Act, she would became full fledged owner. In the present case, Smt. Lalla Beti died on 30-11- 1952 and at that time she has become a full fledged owner as Bhumidhar and ceased to remain a limited owner. In case, she would have inherited the interest as a widow, that was not so, rather her mother Smt. Maharani has got the property in dispute on the basis of a gift-deed from her father-in-law. It could not be said that after the death of Smt. Maharani Smt. Lalla Beti, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 4, got the interest as a limited owner. After her death her interest would devolve upon her son, Veer Singh according to section 174 of the UPZ A and LR Act and not under section 172 of the said Act. 9. Even otherwise also the origin of the title of respondent no. 4, Nanoo Singh has to be ascertained as to how the Sir and Khudkasht land came in the name of Smt. Maharani, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, who was the daughter of Smt. Maharani. Smt. Lalla Beti predecessor- in-interest of respondent no. 4 was also the daughter of Smt. Maharani. The latter has not inherited as a widow or a daughter, rather she got the property on the basis of a gift-deed executed by her father-in-law. Hence, she was not a limited owner. Smt. Lalla Beti predecessor- in-interest of respondent no. 4 was also the daughter of Smt. Maharani. The latter has not inherited as a widow or a daughter, rather she got the property on the basis of a gift-deed executed by her father-in-law. Hence, she was not a limited owner. Consequently the origine of the title and interest is not as a limited owner but as a full fledged Sir and Khudkasht holder. The concept of limited owner would not be attracted in the present case by any stretch of imagination. Even assuming otherwise that there is no justification for the same ttiat Smt. Lalla Beti inherited as a limited owner but at the time of her death on 30-11-1952 A. D. the UP ZA and LR Act and the Hindu Succession Act had come into force. She accordingly became the absolute owner and did not remain a limited owner. After her death on 30-11-1952 her interest would devolve upon her son Veer Singh under section' 174 of the Act. Thereafter it was ultimately inherited by her son Nanoo Singh, respondent no. 4. 10. As the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this remedy is discretionary and cannot be issued as a matter of course or as a right. In the present case, as the petitioner and Smt. Lalla Beti was the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 4 and the petitioner Smt. Phool Kunwar has already got 1/2 share, consequently it is totally inequitable and unjust that she is opening her mouth too wide to grab the property of her real sister Smt. Lalla Beti, which if permitted, would be totally unconscionable and in the equitable jurisdiction that cannot be permitted. In other words, substantial justice has been done by the impugned orders, and even if there is some error, much less and error apparent on the face of record, the petitioner cannot he permitted to challenge the orders as she has got 1/2 share. Consequently, there is no justification to issue a writ of certiorari. In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.