(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed by the petitioner under Section 48 of the U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act whereunder set ting aside the order of remand passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner the revising authority had itself considered the evidence in the materials on the record and restored the order passed by the Consolidation Of ficer rejecting the objections of the petitioner claiming to be the only successor-m-interest of Nandrani, the deceased tenure-holder in respect of her Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute and had upheld the objection of Smt. Shiv Pyari in this con nection and ordered for the recording of her name as the heir of deceased tenure-holder, he has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the im pugned order.
(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, and Sri H. S. Nigam learned counsel representing the contesting respondent.
(3.) THE Deputy Director of Consolida tion in the impugned order has observed that since the holdings situate in the two different villages were different it was not necessary that the objection in regard to the revenue entries in the record of rights relat ing to the holding situate in the two villages be heard together as the consolidation proceedings in both the villages were at dif ferent stages and, therefore, both the cases could be heard independently. THE revising authority however, further observed that the conclusions reached by the Consolida tion Officer in respect of the will, set up by the petitioner were correct and endorsed the finding of the consolidation officer holding the said will to be farzi and unreli able. In the aforesaid view of the matter holding Smt. Shiv Pyari to be entitled to the benefit of Section 175 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act she was found to be the successor-in- interest of Smt. Nandrani and the order of the Consolida tion Officer was restored.