Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Singh learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Sabhapati Tiwari appearing for respondent No. 2.
(2.) Inspite of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(3.) Dispute relates to chak No. 737 which was recorded in the name of deceased-Santoo, husband of petitioner. On his death, vide order dated 20.6.1996 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, name of contesting respondent No. 2, daughter of deceased, came to be mutated in his place on the basis of conciliation. Said order was challenged by petitioner by filing an appeal on the ground that no proclamation was ever issued or served upon her and the provisions of Rule 25(a) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were not followed inasmuch as the alleged compromise was not signed by two members of the Consolidation Committee. Appeal was dismissed in default on 26.10.1998. Subsequently petitioner moved an application to recall the said order. During the pendency of recall application, another application dated 9.3.1998 was moved on behalf of petitioner to dismiss the recall application as not pressed which was allowed and the restoration application was dismissed on 13.7.2000. Petitioner moved an application duly supported by affidavit to recall the order dated 13.7.2000. Said application was moved on the allegations that she was an illiterate lady and the application to dismiss the recall application and appeal was moved by her Pairokar without her instruction by engaging a new Counsel. Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 18.6.2001 allowed the application and recalled orders dated 26.10.1998 and 13.7.2000 and restored the appeal to its original number on the finding that petitioner did not move any application to dismiss the recall application or the appeal as not pressed. Aggrieved by said order, contesting respondent No. 2 went up in revision. Revisional Court vide impugned order 23.11.2001 allowed the revision and set aside the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision filed by contesting respondent has recorded a finding that when the appeal was dismissed in default, and application to recall the same was not pressed there was no justification to restore the appeal on merits. He has also recorded a finding on the merits of the case that respondent No. 2 was the only daughter of deceased and as such she was entitled to inherit the property.;