JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6-8-1980 of the Board of Revenue, dismissing the second appeal of the petitioner under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Gyan Singh and his two sons Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in the court of revenue officer, Farrukhabad, claiming ?th share in the land in dispute which was contested by the defendants on the ground that according to the family pedigree Gyan Singh alone has ?th share in the land and his sons had no share in it. The revenue officer decreed the suit on 27-4-1974. Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Allahabad Division, Allahabad which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 3-1-1976. Petitioner thereafter filed a second appeal in the Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed on 6-8-1980. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has come up to this court under Article 226 of the constitution. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The revenue courts have concurrently held that Gyan Singh and his sons Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker had ?th share in the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the family pedigree only Gyan Singh had ?th share in the land in dispute and his sons had no share therein. From the evidence on record 1 find that Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker had filed civil suit no. 458 of 1955 claiming th share in the land in dispute which was decreed on 20-3-1958 and their names were dully recorded in the revenue records. Subsequently the village was brought under consolidation operation and as Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker were recorded in the basic year petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for expunging their names which was rejected by the consolidation officer on 13-2-1958. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the settlement officer consolidation on 6-1-1969. Petitioner thereafter filed revision to the Dy. Director of Consolidation which was also dismissed on 4-4-1970 on the finding that Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker were entitled for th share in the land in dispute on the basis of decree passed in civil suit no. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the settlement officer consolidation on 6-1-1969. Petitioner thereafter filed revision to the Dy. Director of Consolidation which was also dismissed on 4-4-1970 on the finding that Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker were entitled for th share in the land in dispute on the basis of decree passed in civil suit no. 458 of 1955 and in the remaining th six sons of Puttu Lal, including Gyan Singh had equal shares. The revenue authorities have given the shares of the parties in conformity with the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. Once the claim of the petitioner that Ram Lakhan and Shiv Shanker had no share in the land in dispute was rejected by the civil court and the consolidation authorities, it was not open to the petitioner to raise it again in these proceedings. The shares of the parties were finally determined by the consolidation courts and, as such, revenue courts committed no mistake in deciding the partition suit in terms of the orders passed during consolidation proceedings. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.