S.R. Misra, J. - (1.) By means of this petition, petitioner seeks for quashing of the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dated 22-8-1990, partly allowing the revision filed by the respondents No. 2 to 7 and staying the further proceedings of appeal numbers 198 and 169, Smt. Saeedan v. Abdul Majid and others arising out of case Nos. 958 and 1707 of 1986. Brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows :
(2.) In proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), petitioner filed an objection claiming ⅓rd share in the land in dispute on the basis of inheritance. It is not necessary to give detailed facts contained in the writ petition but the only question involved is whether the petitioner was the daughter and only heir and legal representative of Nyadar and was to entitled ⅓rd share in the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that the petitioner is the daughter of Nyadar, but, according to the petitioner the Consolidation Officer has erroneously rejected her claim, misreading the provisions of Section 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved by the order petitioner filed two sets of appeal, being appeal Nos. 165 and 169 as the property for which the inheritance was sought for was situated in two villages, namely I Kopa Ehtemali and Kopa Bilaehte Mali. Both appeal are pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Opposite parties during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act filed on application for staying the proceedings of the appeals No. 1.68 and 169, which were filed in respect of the village in question on the ground that identical dispute is involved in the other village so that there may not be any danger of conflicting orders. The prayer of the respondents was rejected by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Aggrieved by the said order, respondents filed a revision and the revisional court partly allowed the revision and directed that two appeals pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), filed by the petitioner may remain stayed during the pendency of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer in respect of the other village. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner was approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have heard Sri R. H. Zaidi, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Haider Husain, appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.;