Heard learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-1-1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the contesting Respondent No, 2, Shri Kamla Prasad Singh.

3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that in the basic year, over Khata No. 19 Kha, for short the land in dispute name of the petitioner Smt. Bechna was recorded. Objection under Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, for short the Act, was filed by Respondent No. 2 claiming that the name of the petitioner in the revenue papers was farzi, it was liable to be expunged and that the said respon dent was entitled to one half share in the land in dispute. The objection filed by Respondent No. 2 was contested by the petitioner pleading that it was on 13-11-1956 that a sale-deed was executed by Respondent No. 2 in her favour on the basis of which, she applied for mutation of her name in the revenue papers. Her