JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Brijesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent no.4. 2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order dated 9.11.2015 passed in revision filed against the order dated 25.4.2003 purported to have been passed under Section 157-A of the UPZA&LR Act. The petitioner is claiming to be the daughter of second wife of the vendor. 3. It is submitted that although the permission was asked for only 11 vishwa but the entire land has been allowed to be sold by the respondents. 4. So far as the locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, it is argued that being daughter she is interested in the property and she has locus standi to challenge such a transfer, which in any case she is claiming on the basis of will said to have been executed in her favour on 6th March, 2002. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the petitioner has no locus standi and so far as her right in the property is concerned, the petitioner has already filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, which suit is still pending being Suit No. 678 of 2003. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 7. The permission has been granted under Section 157-A of the UPZA& LR Act. The petitioner being daughter cannot raise objection to such a transfer. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit, which has already been filed. In the said suit no injunction has been granted so far. 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see that the petitioner has any locus to challenge the permission granted under 157-A of the Act. 9. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.