S.R.Misra - (1.)THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 17-8-1990, 30-11-1988 and 29-1-1987.
(2.)I have heard Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Namvar Singh, who has filed his appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the case According to the High Court Rules the writ petition is being decided finally.
Three points have been mainly urged by the petitioner in this petition. Firstly, he has not afforded any opportunity, secondly after the passing of the order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, upholding the earlier order, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has no jurisdiction under the law to review or recall that order, and lastly, it has been urged that such an order, which has given rise to this writ petition, cannot be passed under Section 42-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, specially after the denotification under Section 52 of the Act and in view of this, according to the petitioner, the orders passed are without jurisdiction.

The brief facts of the writ petition are that in the basic year Khuthhan, respondent no. 3 and one Smt. Laliya were entered as joint tenants to the extent of having half share. On the death of Smt. Laliya, respondent no. 3 filed an application that he is entitled to the share of Smt. Laliya and his name was accordingly mutated. The petitioner, Smt. Munni, approached the higher authority and there it was held that Smt. Munni is entitled to have her name in place of Smt. Laliya. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, expunged the name of Khuthhan respondent no. 3, as a whole which appeared to have done due to erroneous or clarical mistake, because at no stage Smt. Munni, petitioner] ever claimed the share of Khuthhan respondent no. 3 nor there was any basis on which it could be said that she was in possession of the whole. She was claiming only as a heir of Smt. Laliya and Laliya and Khuthhan both were entered in the basic year. On the death of Smt. Laliya except Smt. Munni, the petitioner, no one can become her heir but the question of expunging the name of respondent no. 3 by depriving him to his rights to extent of half share is without any basis and even assuming it for the sake of argument, which has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner, that the orders in the matter are wholly without jurisdiction but under Article 226 of the Constitution once I am satisfied that the share of Smt. Laliya has been given to the petitioner, it would be futile exercise to send the matter back to the authorities for reopening the same as afresh, as no useful purpose will be served I am not inclined to interfere against such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Stay order if any is discharged. Petitioner dismissed