JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the respondent no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Budaun, copy of which is appended as annexure 1 to the writ petition.

2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is daughter of late Rameshwar Dayal Mishra resident of Village-Khurampur Bhamauri, Pargana Satasi, Tehsil Visauli, District Budaun. The respondents no.3 and 4 are the real brothers of the petitioner and Smt. Satto Devi is the mother of the petitioner. The respondent no.2 namely Omwati is not the mother of the petitioner as well as respondent nos.3 and 4. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent no.2 is not the widow of Rameshwar Dayal Mishra and she is a widow of one Tota Ram resident of Village Khandua Pargana Kot Tehsil Sahaswan, District Budaun.

4. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is stated that the Rameshwar Dayal Mishra has executed a Will on 4.3.2003 in favour of the petitioner. He died on the next day of the execution of Will, i.e., 05.03.2003. It appears from perusal of the record that the respondent no.3 namely Yogesh Kumar filed a case under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 being Case No.79 of 2013-14 against Omwati before the Consolidation Officer, Budaun. In the said case an application/objection was filed by the petitioner for mutation of her name. Further prayer was made in the aforesaid application that the petitioner should be arrayed as one of the necessary party in the aforesaid case. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner has given another application in this regard before the Consolidation Officer, Budaun on 3.1.2013. The Consolidation Officer, Budaun, rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner vide order dated 3.5.2014, copy of the order dated 3.5.2014 is appended as annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2.

5. Against the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of the Consolidation, Budaun. The aforesaid appeal was allowed by him vide its judgment and order dated 18.9.2014. By the aforesaid order Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Budaun, remanded the matter before the Consolidation Officer with the directions to implead the petitioner as one of the necessary party and to provide the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter decide the matter on merits. The aforesaid order dated 18.9.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Budaun, was challenged before the respondent no.1 namely Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Budaun by filing a revision as provided under Section 48 of the Act, 1953. The aforesaid revision filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed by the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 19.5.2015. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no.1.

6. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.1 has not applied its judicial mind while passing the order impugned. The findings recorded by the respondent no.1 is absolutely perverse and against the record. It is further argued that the petitioner is a necessary party in the aforesaid case since her interest is involved in the matter but respondent no.1 has not considered the grievance of the petitioner.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed in the matter on behalf of the respondent no.2. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the so called Will is a forged document and the respondent no.2 is getting family pension and all other retiral benefits since 5.3.2004. It is further stated i