JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri S.K. Purwar, for the petitioner and Sri Anand Yadav, for respondent-6. The writ petition has been filed for quashing orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.9.2008 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.11.2014, passed in proceedings under sections 9-A and 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute relates to inheritance of the land of Khalkoo son of Raghunath recorded in khatas 24, 27, 28 and 29 of village Korwas, tahsil Mehrauni, district Lalitpur. Smt. Panthuriya (the petitioner) is married daughter and Smt. Ujyari (respondent-3) is widow of Har Prasad, a predeceased son of Khalkoo. Under section171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, a widow of predeceased son is a preferential heir than a married daughter. The petitioner took plea that Har Prasad died in 1961. Smt. Ujyari (respondent-3), being a young widow, remarried to Gajju in 1963, from whom, she was having three sons Ram Milan, Ram Singh and Bhuwan and one daughter Smt. Halki. Khalkoo died in the year 1985, leaving behind him the petitioner alone as his preferential heir. 3. After death of Khalkoo, both the petitioner and respondent-3 filed their applications (registered as Case Nos. 7/1985-86 and 20/1985-86) under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, for mutation of their names as an heir. Tahsildar by order dated 11.5.1987 directed for mutation of the name of respondent-3 as an heir of Khalkoo. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 27/1986-87), which was allowed by Assistant Collector by order dated 26.4.1988. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent-3 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 74/62), which was dismissed in default on 12.4.1993. 4. In the meantime, the village was notified under section 4 (2) of the Act in March, 1989. After notification under section 9, respondent-3 filed an objection (registered as Case No. 282) under section 9-A(2) of the Act, on 10.1.1996, claiming herself as an heir of Khalkoo and for recording her name over the aforesaid khatas. Consolidation Officer, by ex-parte order dated 5.8.1999, allowed the objection and directed for recording the name of respondent-3 as an heir of Khalkoo. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside exparte order dated 5.8.1999. According to the petitioner, this application is still pending. 5. Consolidation Officer, by ex-parte order dated 5.8.1999, allowed the objection and directed for recording the name of respondent-3 as an heir of Khalkoo. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside exparte order dated 5.8.1999. According to the petitioner, this application is still pending. 5. In the meantime, Smt. Ujyari executed two sale deeds in favour of Mahendra Pal Singh and Smt. Kamlesh Raju (respondents-4 and 5). On the basis of the sale deeds respondents-4 and 5 filed their separate applications (registered as Case Nos. 17 and 20) under section 12 of the Act, for mutation of their names. Assistant Consolidation Officer by orders dated 28.11.2000 and 7.12.2000 respectively, directed for mutation of the names of respondents-4 and 5, over the land purchased by them. Then the petitioner filed three appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 33, 34 and 39) from the orders dated 28.11.2000, 7.12.2000 and 5.8.1999. All the three appeals were consolidated and decided by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 16.1.2004, held that order dated 5.8.1999 was an exparte order. Since there was no personal service of the notice on the petitioner as such it was liable to be set aside. Fate of orders dated 28.11.2000 and 7.12.2000 would depend upon, the title of Smt. Ujyari, as such these orders were also liable to be set aside and all the cases were required to be tried and decided together by a common order. On these findings, the appeals of the petitioner were allowed and the orders dated 28.11.2000, 7.12.2000 and 5.8.1999 were set aside. The matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial and fresh decision. Respondent-3 filed three revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 114, 115 and 116) from the aforesaid orders. After hearing the parties, Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 27.7.2006 held that the only issue between the parties is in respect of remarriage of Smt. Ujyari. Since two ladies were contesting the matter from a long time as such in stead of remanding the case to Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation may himself allow the parties to adduce their evidence and decide the cases finally on merit. On these findings the revisions were allowed and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation for giving opportunity of evidence to the parties and decide the cases finally. The parties were directed to appear before Settlement Officer Consolidation on 10.8.2006. 6. On these findings the revisions were allowed and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation for giving opportunity of evidence to the parties and decide the cases finally. The parties were directed to appear before Settlement Officer Consolidation on 10.8.2006. 6. After remand, Settlement Officer Consolidation heard the appeals afresh, who by his order dated 5.9.2008 held that the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove remarriage of Smt. Ujyari. On the other hand, from the copy of Voter List, Voter Identity Card, Pariwar Register and certificate issued by Pradhan, it was proved that Smt. Ujyari was living as widow of Har Prasad in the village. Smt. Ujyari, being widow of predeceased son of Khalkoo as such she was a preferential heir. On these findings all the three appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 247) from the aforesaid order. Revision was heard by respondent-1, who by order dated 5.11.2014 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner from the order of Tahsildar dated 11.5.1987 was allowed by Assistant Collector by order dated 26.7.1988. The revision filed by respondent-3 against it, was dismissed on 12.4.1993. As such the order of Assistant Collector dated 26.7.1988, has become final between the parties. The consolidation authorities have illegally ignored it. Smt. Ujyari, after becoming widow in 1961, remarried to Gajju, in 1963, from whom, she was having three sons and one daughter. Remarriage of a widow was prevalent in the caste of the parties. Thus on the date of death of Khalkoo, she could not be treated as a widow of predeceased son and an heir of Khalkoo, while the petitioner being married daughter of Khalkoo, she alone is his heir. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.7.2006 was illegal, in as much as he has illegally interfered with the remand order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.1.2004, due to which, the petitioner has been deprived from the opportunity of adducing evidence. The recall application filed by the petitioner is still pending, the Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the recall application. 8. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The recall application filed by the petitioner is still pending, the Consolidation Officer be directed to decide the recall application. 8. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. So far as pendency of the recall application, is concerned, the petitioner herself filed a time barred Appeal No. 39 from the order dated 5.8.1999, which was allowed on 16.1.2004 and the order dated 5.8.1999 was set aside. The recall application of the petitioner has become infructuous. 9. So far as the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.7.2006, is concerned, by this order Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the only issue between the parties is in respect of remarriage of Smt. Ujyari. Since two ladies were contesting the matter from a long time as such in stead of remanding the case to Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation may himself allow the parties to adduce their evidence and decide the cases finally on merit. On these findings the revisions were allowed and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation for giving opportunity of evidence to the parties and decide the cases finally and the parties were directed to appear before Settlement Officer Consolidation on 10.8.2006. Thus the petitioner was given opportunity to adduce her evidence on the issue of remarriage, before Settlement Officer Consolidation, before whom, the petitioner preferred to rely upon the order of Assistant Collector dated 26.7.1988 and could not adduce any other evidence to prove that Smt. Ujyari had remarried to Gajju, after becoming widow. Thereafter arguments of the parties were heard and fresh order was passed on 5.9.2008. The petitioner has not taken any ground in this respect before Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. The petitioner has submitted to the jurisdiction of Settlement Officer Consolidation after remand of the case, she cannot be allowed to challenge the order dated 27.7.2006 at this stage. 10. The arguments regarding binding effect of the order of Assistant Collector dated 26.7.1988, is concerned, admittedly this order was passed in the appeal arising out of mutation proceeding under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 40-A of this Act itself allow the parties to challenge mutation order in regular suit as such it is neither binding nor operates as res-judicata in the consolidation proceedings, which is a regular title proceeding. Section 40-A of this Act itself allow the parties to challenge mutation order in regular suit as such it is neither binding nor operates as res-judicata in the consolidation proceedings, which is a regular title proceeding. Apart from this order, the petitioner, could not adduce any evidence to prove remarriage of Smt. Ujyari. On the other hand on the basis of copies of Voter List, Pariwar Register, Voter Identity Card, and certificate issued by Pradhan, as well as statement of Smt. Ujyari, it was proved that Smt. Ujyari was living as widow of Har Prasad in the house of Khalkoo, through out. Finding of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.