JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Sandeep Kumar learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the side opposite. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents/opposite party is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by opposite party no.3/Consolidation Officer, Ucchaulia, District Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'C.O.') in Case No. 66,341,342,343,344 (Indra Pal Singh and Others v. Gajar Singh and Others) filed under Section 9A(2) of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act of 1953'), as also the order dated 26.06.2013 passed by opposite party no.2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri (in short 'SOC') in appeal no. 799/2007 (Maya Devi v. Chandrakali and Others) filed under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 and also the order dated 28.12.2023 passed in Revision No. 471/202254104300001338 (Maya Devi v. Chandrakali and Others) filed under Section 148 of the Act of 1953, passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri. 4. A challenge has been made by the petitioner to the impugned order(s) on the following grounds:- "A. Because, while deciding the case, the learned consolidation officer awarded share to mother-in-law also whereas no objection under section 9A of the 'Act'. B. Because, the appellate court without taking in consideration that no objection under section 9 of the 'Act' has been made by opposite party no.4 and awarding any claim to her is barred under section 11A of the 'Act' has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 26-06-2013. C. Because, all the courts below passed the impugned judgments and orders taking the base of section 171 prevalent at the relevant time but did not appreciate that section 11A creates specific bar of raising objections in respect of land if the same had not been raised under section 9 of the 'Act'. The courts below did not consider that the dispute can be settled between the parties who are party to dispute and not otherwise. D. Because, while passing the impugned judgments and orders the courts below did not appreciate the fact that impact of birth of daughter of petitioner remained unsettled. The courts below did not consider that the dispute can be settled between the parties who are party to dispute and not otherwise. D. Because, while passing the impugned judgments and orders the courts below did not appreciate the fact that impact of birth of daughter of petitioner remained unsettled. E. Because, while passing the impugned judgments and orders the courts below did not discuss the impact in respect of the fact that during course of litigation section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was amended and widow was given preference in comparison to law as stood earlier in which widow and widowed mother were given equal share." 5. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed the present petition. 6. Opposing the present petition, Sri Sandeep Kumar Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the side opposite and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel, submitted that as per Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R., Act 1950 (in short 'Act of 1950'), as applicable at relevant time i.e. on 03.07.1995 (date of death of Pradeep Singh-husband of petitioner), the petitioner and opposite party no.4 Smt. Chandrakala (mother of Pradeep Singh) were entitled to the share in the property of Pradeep Singh and as such even if, there is some procedural irregularity, the impugned order(s) are not liable to be interfered as substantial justice has been done in terms of statutory provision i.e. Section 171 of the Act of 1950. 7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. 8. To decide the issue involved in the present petition, it would be appropriate to extract Section 171 of the Act of 1950, as applicable on 03.07.1995 (the date of death of Pradeep Singh), which reads as under:- "171. 7. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records. 8. To decide the issue involved in the present petition, it would be appropriate to extract Section 171 of the Act of 1950, as applicable on 03.07.1995 (the date of death of Pradeep Singh), which reads as under:- "171. General order of succession.- Subject to the provisions of Section 169, when a Bhumidhar [* *] or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below : (a) the male lineal descendant in the male line of descent equal shares per strips : Provided first, that the son of a predeceased son how low-so-ever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the predeceased son, had he been alive : Provided secondly that, subject to the provisions of the first proviso, the share of a predeceased male lineal descendant will devolve upon his widow who has not remarried; and Provided thirdly that if no male lineal descendant in the male line of descent is alive, the inheritance shall be governed by Clause (b); (b) widow and widowed mother and widow of a pre-deceased male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who have not remarried: Provided firstly, that co-widows will together get one share: Provided secondly, that the widow of a nearer des-cendant will exclude that of a remoter one in the same branch; and (c) [Deleted]; (d) father; (e) [Deleted]; (ee) unmarried daughter; (f) brother, being the son of the same father as the deceased; (ff) unmarried sister; (g) married daughter; (h) daughter's son; (i) brother's son, the brother having been son of the same father as the deceased; (j) father's father; (k) father's mother, who has not remarried; (l) son's daughter; (m) married sister; (n) half sister being the daughter of the same father as the deceased; (o) sister's son; (oo) half-sister's son, the sister having been the daughter of the same father as the deceased; (p) brother's son's son ; (q) father's father's son ; (r) father's father's son's son," 9. A perusal of Section 171 of the Act of 1950, as applicable, indicates that upon the death of Pradeep Singh, the property in issue, would devolve in the name of petitioner (wife of Pradeep Singh) and Smt. Chandrakala (mother of Pradeep Singh). 10. A perusal of Section 171 of the Act of 1950, as applicable, indicates that upon the death of Pradeep Singh, the property in issue, would devolve in the name of petitioner (wife of Pradeep Singh) and Smt. Chandrakala (mother of Pradeep Singh). 10. From the order(s) impugned it is apparent that authorities have provided the rights to petitioner and opposite party no.4, in terms of Section 171 of the Act of 1950, as applicable in the instant case. 11. In the case of Sita Ram alias Baba v. Dy. Director Consolidation Varanasi reported in 2000 (18) LCD 527, this Court has observed that High Court should not interfere if the substantial justice has been done, even if the order of the authority is without jurisdiction or against the law. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court feels that no interference is required in the impugned order 28.03.2007 passed by opposite party no.3 as also in the order dated 26.06.2013 passed by opposite party no.2 and order dated 28.12.2003 passed by opposite party no.1 and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.