JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts dated 14.9.2009, 20.7.2010 and 26.3.2010. 3. As far as the order dated 26.3.2010 is concerned, the same was passed under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act, 1953') by the Consolidation Officer, wherein, the claim of the petitioners herein for mutation of their name in respect of the land in question on the basis of sale-deed executed by Smt. Kiran Srivastava on 2.7.2009 was declined on the ground that in separate proceedings wherein Smt. Kiran Srivastava was a party the S.O.C. had already opined that after marriage on 1.6.1990 Smt. Kiran Srivastava’s interest in the holdings which had devolved upon her from her mother, who inturn had succeeded to the holding of her husband i.e. the father-in-law of Smt. Kiran Srivastava, ceased and stood reverted in terms of Section 172(1) of the U.P Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘’the Act, 1950') upon the nearest surviving heirs (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar or asami. Against the said order dated 26.3.2010 an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 had already been preferred by the petitioners herein which is still pending. 4. As far as the orders dated 14.9.2009 and 20.7.2010 are concerned, these arise from separate proceedings which originated under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953, wherein, objections were filed by the respondents herein the sons of Jagdev Sahai Lal and their successors in interest, whereas, those, namely, Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar, who had purchased part of the 1/3 share of Smt. Kiran Srivastava had filed objections under Section 12 of the Act, 1953. In those proceedings initially an order was passed on 5.9.1997 for recording the names of Murli Manohar and Raja Mohan Srivastava the two sons of Jagdev Sahai Lal and Smt. Kiran Srivastava the grand daughter of Jagdev Sahai Lal i.e. the daughter of pre-deceased son Shyam Manohar. Prior to this the name of Smt. Sobhawati the mother of Smt. Kiran Srivastava was recorded. Prior to this the name of Smt. Sobhawati the mother of Smt. Kiran Srivastava was recorded. As the order dated 5.9.1997 was allegedly ex parte, therefore, on an application being filed by the respondents herein, the same was recalled on 4.9.1998. This order dated 4.9.1998 was never challenged. As, even after recall of the order dated 5.9.1997, the entries made in the revenue records in pursuance thereof continued and were not expunged, therefore, the respondents filed an application for correction of the order dated 4.9.1998 praying that the said consequential entires be expunged. This application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 18.2.1999. 5. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that in these proceedings the petitioners herein were not parties and in fact did not even figure in the scheme of things, as, by then they had not purchased the land in question from Smt. Kiran Srivastava. 6. Be that as it may, being aggrieved, the respondents herein filed two appeals in one of which they challenged the order dated 5.9.1997, even though the same had already been recalled, and in the other appeal they challenged the order dated 18.2.1999 referred herein above. An interim order was passed by which the order dated 5.9.1997 was stayed. Thereafter, the proceedings took place and the appellate Court ultimately recorded a finding that after marriage on 1.6.1990 the holding which had devolved upon Smt. Kiran Srivastava stood reverted in terms of Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950 upon the nearest heir of the last male bhumidhar (Jagdeve Sahai Lal) i.e. upon his sons Murli Manohar and Raja Mohan Srivastava. The petitioners were not parties before the appellate Court for the reasons already mentioned herein above. 7. In the meantime, as they purchased the land in question in the year 2009 from Smt. Kiran Srivastava i.e. after her marriage and their mutation application under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 came to be rejected with reference to the order passed by the S.O.C. in the Appellate proceedings as aforesaid on 14.9.2009, therefore, realizing the hurdle placed by the said order in their path they filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation challenging the aforesaid order, even though, they were not parties in the proceedings before the Court below. Simultaneously, they also filed an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 as already stated herein above before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation challenging the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 26.3.2010, which is still pending. The revision of the petitioners as aforesaid was dismissed on the same ground i.e. after marriage Smt. Kiran Srivastava could not have executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners herein as her rights ceased in view of Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950. 8. It is against the aforesaid background that the orders passed by the S.O.C. on 14.9.2009 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20.7.2010 in the aforesaid appeals and revision have been challenged by the petitioners before this Court, even though, they were not parties in these proceedings under Section 9 and 11 before the C.O. and S.O.C. respectively and had no locus prior to the execution of the sale-deed in their favour in the year 2009. 9. The contention of Shri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order dated 5.9.1997 had already been recalled on 14.9.1998, therefore, there was no occasion to file an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 nor for it to be considered and decided with findings on merit. The order dated 18.2.1998 was an order consequential to the order dated 4.9.1998 which had not been challenged, therefore, the appeal challenging the same was also not maintainable. Consequentially, the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who in any case did not have the authority to exercise original jurisdiction which should have been exercised by the Consolidation Officer consequent to the recall, is clearly not sustainable, but, the revisional Court erred in not appreciating this aspect of the matter. He also contended that even the revisional Court could not have considered the merits of the controversy when the Consolidation Officer had not done so and in fact it was the Consolidation Officer, who could have considered the matter after the passing of the order dated 4.9.1998. How so ever wide the revisional power may be they could not be equeted with the powers of the original Court nor that of the appellate Court. How so ever wide the revisional power may be they could not be equeted with the powers of the original Court nor that of the appellate Court. He also contended that the findings recorded herein prejudice the rights of the petitioners in the pending appeal against the order dated 26.3.2010 and have already prejudiced their rights in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 where their claim for mutation has been rejected by the Consolidation Officer by the said order. 10. In the alternative Shri Mehrotra also addressed the merits of the issues and relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramji Dixit and another v. Bhrigunath and others, 1964 RD 81 (FB); as also the judgment of the Supreme Court arising from the said judgment in Ramji Dixit (dead) by legal representatives and another v. Bhirgunath and others, AIR 1968 SC 1058 ; and a judgment of a Single Judge Bench of this Court in Dukhoo Upadhyaya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2014(1) ADJ 495 , contended that Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950 did not have the affect of taking away the rights of a daughter or a widow in respect of land which had devolved as mentioned therein. On the other hand Shri Subhash Vidyarthi, Advocate alongwith Shri Purshottam Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents submit that the legal position is very well-settled that once a bhumidhar has, after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding, whether as a widow or a daughter marries, the holding or the part shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar, meaning thereby, it will revert back to them, therefore, after 1.6.1990 Smt. Krian Srivastava could not execute any sale-deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioners, consequently, the sale-deed was void and the marriage of Smt. Kiran Srivastava not being in dispute, all the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are only of academic interest, therefore, they pleaded that this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should render substantial justice ignoring the technicalities. However, in the same vein learned counsel contended that the appellate and revisional Court did not commit any error in considering the merits of the issues as they had ample powers to do so, specially, the reivsional Court. Learned counsel placed reliance upon a recent decision of a Single Judge Bench of this Court in Chandan Devi v. Additional Collector/Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2014(1) ADJ 152 , wherein, it has been held that on marriage of daughter of tenure holder, her interest in property would devolve upon real brother of tenure holder and his heir in view of Section 172(1) (b) of the Act, 1950 in support of the above contention. 11. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records no doubt stricto sensue the appellate Court at the relevant time should not have entertained the appeal of the respondents, as, the order dated 5.9.1997 had already been recalled and was non existent, however, so far as the order dated 18.2.1999 is concerned, apparently the respondents did not have any other remedy in the matter except filing an appeal, as, proceedings under Rule 109-A would not stricto sensu be maintainable as no directions had been given by the said order by the Consolidation Officer, but, even if appeal was maintainable the appellate Court, in such circumstances, could at best have passed relevant orders relating to the subject-matter in issue dealt with by the order dated 18.2.1999 rather than deciding the merits of the controversy himself, as, after recall of the order dated 5.9.1997 the same were to be decided by the Consolidation Officer, however, considering the fact firstly that the petitioners herein do not deny the marriage of Smt. Kiran Srivastava on 1.6.1990 nor has she done so, secondly, petitioners were not parties in those proceedings at the relevant time and came into the picture only in the year 2009, thirdly, both the S.O.C. and the revisional Courts specially the latter which had very wide powers under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 after the amendment vide U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 w.e.f. 10.11.2008, have considered the pleas based on Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950 and have recorded a finding that after marriage on 1.6.1990 the sale-deed could not have been executed by Smt. Kiran Srivastava, therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners would succeed before this Court on the grounds aforesaid, only if they were able to make out a case on merit in the light of the provisions contained in Section 172 (1) of the Act, 1950, as, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to render complete effectual, substantial justice and would not interfere on mere technicalities or mere errors, if ultimately, substantial justice has been rendered, specially, if by doing so, it would be bringing to life or perpetuating an illegality. 12. 12. It is not out of place to mention that petitioners herein did not raise the question of maintainability of the aforesaid appeals before the S.O.C. nor before the revisional Court. 13. As far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the three judgments already referred herein above, the facts and issues therein were entirely different, therefore, the observations made by this Court and the Supreme Court have to be considered accordingly. In the said case of Ramji Dixit (supra) the original tenure holder Raj Kishore, who possessed the sir and khudkasht land, died in 1923, whereupon, the same devolved upon his widow Sanwari. With the coming into force on July 1, 1952 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Rules (1) of 1951 Smt. Sawanri acquired the status of the bhumidhar in respect of those sir and khudkasht land. On December 18, 1952 Smt. Sanwari made a gift of the bhumidhari land in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2. Smt. Sanwari died in 1954. Claiming to be nearest reversioners of Raj Kishore, Ramji Dixit and others commenced an action based on the aforesaid, therefore, the facts and issues were clearly different, as, Smt. Sanwari had gifted the land during her life time and it is in this background that the Courts held that Section 172 of the Act, 1950 and other provisions of the relevant statues did not in any manner persuade them to hold that the interest of Smt. Sanwari was only a life interest. 14. The facts and issues herein are very different. The land in question was initially recorded in the name of Jagdev Sahai Lal, who had three sons, namly, Murli Manohar, Raja Manohar and Shyam Manohar. Shyam Manohar predeceased Jagdev Sahai Lal, therefore, after the death of Shri Lal the name of Smt. Sobhawati the wife of predeceased Shyam Manohar came to be recorded. After the death of Smt. Sobhawati in the year 1983 the name of Km. Kiran Srivastava, the unmarried daughter, was recorded. Up to this stage there is no dispute. The dispute arose in view of the fact that Smt. Kiran Srivastava married on 1.6.1990 and thereafter she executed a sale-deed in respect of some portions of 1/3 of the aforesaid holding in favour of Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar on 9.3.1995. Kiran Srivastava, the unmarried daughter, was recorded. Up to this stage there is no dispute. The dispute arose in view of the fact that Smt. Kiran Srivastava married on 1.6.1990 and thereafter she executed a sale-deed in respect of some portions of 1/3 of the aforesaid holding in favour of Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar on 9.3.1995. Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar were parties to the proceedings, wherein the order dated 5.9.1997 was passed. 15. At this state it is not out of place to mention that after the passing of the order dated 14.9.2009 by the S.O.C. declining the claim of Smt. Kiran Srivastava to the holding in view of Section 172(1) of the Act, 1950, Anil Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar her successors in interest never challenged the said order dated 14.9.2009 and therefore, the same attained finality as far as they are concerned. 16. Thereafter on 2.7.2009 Smt. Kiran Srivastava executed a second sale-deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the other portion of her 1/3 share. The moot point in these proceedings is whether this was permissible in law. Section 172 of the Act, 1950 reads as under : “172. Succession in the case of a woman holding an interest inherited as a widow, mother, daughter, etc.—(1) When a bhumidhar, or asami who has after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding- (a) as a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant, in the male line of descent, mother or father’s mother dies, marries, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof; or (b) as a daughter, son’s daughter, sister or half-sister being the daughter or the same father as the deceased marries dies, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof, the holding or the part shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar, or asami. (2) Where a bhumidhar 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 line 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 bhumidhar 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 estate only in the holding, the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male intermediary or tenant aforesaid; and if (ii) she was in accordance with the personal law applicable to her entitled to the holding absolutely the holding shall devolve in accordance with the table mentioned in Section 174; (b) dies, abandons or surrenders and in the case of a widow, widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, mother, father’s mother, marries such bhumidhar on the date immediately before the said date held the holding otherwise than as an intermediary or tenant referred to in Clause (a), the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male tenant. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) mutatis mutandis apply to an asami who inherited the holding before the date of vesting. (4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person succeeding to an interest in any holding under the provisions of Section 174.” 17. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that when a bhumidhar or asami who has after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any holding- (a) as a widow etc.; or (b) as a daughter etc., marries, dies, abandons or surrenders such holding or part thereof, the holding or the part shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Section 171) of the last male bhumidhar or asami. It is not in dispute that Smt. Kiran Srivastava had inherited an interest in the holding in question after the date of vesting, as a daughter from her mother. Her mother had inherited the same interest as a widow of a predeceased son. It is not in dispute that Smt. Kiran Srivastava married on 1.6.1990. In view of this, the language of the statue is very clear. On such marriage the holding or the part shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar in terms of Section 171 which indisputably were Raja Manohar and Murli Manohar as also their successors in interest (respondents). As already stated herein above, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not apply to the subject-matter in issue in this case. On the other hand the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents and rendered in Chandan Devi’s case (supra) squarely applies to it. 18. Such being the factual and legal position with regard to the subject-matter in issue, ignoring the technicalities involved, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioners herein who had purchased the land in question from Smt. Kiran Srivastava, who herself did not have a right to transfer the land in question after her marriage in view of the provisions of Section 172(1), cannot be given any relief in these proceedings based on the sale-deed executed by her. The respondents are, accordingly, entitled to holdings in question. As the petitioners have themselves chosen to challenge the order dated 26.3.2010 passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting their claim under Section 12, even though, their appeal against the said order is pending, therefore, this Court is of the view that the rights of the petitioners now stand concluded by this judgment and the appeal filed by the petitioners stands disposed of accordingly in terms of this judgment, as, the petitioners cannot be permitted to pursue the same issue in two different proceedings. Having chosen to do so in these proceedings they must bear the consequences. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.