JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - In the present writ petition the dispute relates to land of Khata No. 144 and two plots Nos. 1447 and 1448 of Khata No. 143. In the basic year Khatauni the names of petitioner's father Chikhuri and opposite party No. 1 Ram Deo were recorded. An objection was filed by Chikhuri, the father of the petitioner claiming that he is the sole tenure holder of the land in disputed holding Khata No. 143. He also claimed to be sole tenure holder and in exclusive possession over two plots of Khata No. 143, namely plots Nos. 1447 and 1448. The claim of the petitioner was contended by opposite party No. 1 Ram Deo. He asserted that he is co-tenure holder of the land of both the aforesaid holdings. It was asserted that the ':and in dispute is ancestral and his name has been correctly recorded as co-tenure holder. An objection was also filed by opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. They asserted to be sole tenure holders of the disputed holdings and prayed that the recorded tenure holders be expunged. Their objection was, however, rejected by the Consolidation Officer by the impugned order. They had not preferred any appeal or revision against that order. The Consolidation Officer had also rejected the objection filed by Chikhuri and held that the petitioner's father Chikhuri and Ram Deo the opposite party No. 1 are the co-tenure holders of the disputed holdings. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner preferred appeal as his father Chikhuri had died. This appeal was heard and dismissed 1i' the Settlement Officer, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27- 12-1978. Still feeling aggrieved the petitioner had preferred revision which too was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18-4-1979. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Shifiq Mirza urged that the consolidation authorities have not taken into consideration the evidence which was led by the petitioner in support of his claim. In para 11 of the writ petition certain documentary evidence as well as oral evidence has been referred about which the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the same was not considered while deciding the case. In para 11 of the writ petition certain documentary evidence as well as oral evidence has been referred about which the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the same was not considered while deciding the case. I have perused the impugned orders very carefully and I find that the consolidation authorities have considered the oral and documentary evidence of the parties led in support of their respective claim. It was asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of land of Khata No. 144, there had been a litigation with other co-sharers in the year 1954 and in that litigation Ram Deo had surrendered his claim in favour of Chikhuri. This argument was also advanced before the consolidation authorities and the same appears to have been rightly rejected. It has come in evidence that Ram Deo was not party in the said litigation. Thus, even if he had not contributed in financing the said litigation, he will not lose his right. Ram Deo in his statement had admitted that the land in suit belonged to the common ancestor Samjhawan and, as such, Ram Deo will not lose his half share in the disputed holding merely on the ground that in earlier litigation the land holding to Samjhawan was given to Chikhuri on the basis of compromise between the parties of the said litigation. In view of the admission of Chikhuri to the effect that the land in dispute belonged to Samjhawan, there appears to be no error in the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities in giving half share to opposite party No. I Ram Deo in the land of the said disputed holdings. The. impugned order, in my opinion, do not suffer from any error of fact, law or jurisdiction so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 3. In the result, the writ petition fails being devoid of merits, and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.