JUDGMENT Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 2.2.2015 rejecting the objection of the petitioner relating to non-joinder of necessary party in the appeal and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.5.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. There was dispute between the petitioner and Smt. Sumitra Devi in respect of inheritance of Ram Khelawan. Smt. Sumitra Devi set up her claim that Ram Dulari had re-married as such she was divested under Section 172 of UP Act No. 1 of 1951. The Consolidation Officer has not accepted the plea of Smt. Sumitra Devi and found that Ram Dulari is the heir of Ram Khelawan. Against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 31.8.1989, Smt. Sumitra Devi filed an appeal. In the appeal initially she has impleaded Smt. Ram Dulari as wife of Om Prakash, resident of village Barai Khurd as respondent but later on she also impleaded Smt. Ram Dulari as widow of Ram Khelawan resident of village Dihuli as respondent. The petitioner filed an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation that dispute between the parties was in respect of various khatas of the village. In the khata in dispute, various other persons were also co-sharer and they were not impleaded as party in the appeal, therefore, the appellant be directed to be impleaded all the co-sharers as respondents in the appeal or the appeal be dismissed due to non-joinder of necessary party. Later on another application on 31.10.2013 was filed for deciding the issue of maintainability of appeal in the absence of necessary party. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 2.2.2015 found that the application was filed by the petitioner only to delay the hearing of the appeal accordingly he rejected the application. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision. The revision was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 31.5.2016. Hence this writ petition has been filed. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent-3 is in respect of inheritance of Ram Khelawan. Smt. Sumitra Devi who is daughter of Ram Khelawan claiming her title alleging that Ram Dulari, who is widow of Ram Khelawan was re-married as such she was divested. I have considered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent-3 is in respect of inheritance of Ram Khelawan. Smt. Sumitra Devi who is daughter of Ram Khelawan claiming her title alleging that Ram Dulari, who is widow of Ram Khelawan was re-married as such she was divested. No other co-sharer has ever raised any dispute for the share of Ram Khelawan or they ever claimed the property of Ram Khelawan. The share of other co-sharers has already been decided by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.8.1989 and no one has challenged the share. Thus in the appeal the issue relating to inheritance of Ram Khelawan alone has to be decided. The petitioner as well as respondent-3 are necessary party in the appeal and the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.