JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - The petitioners had filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Ram Nihore. Ram Nihore died leaving behind them as his only heirs and legal representatives but due to some mistake the name of his widow Smt. Pachui was mutated in the revenue records. 2. The objection was contested by Smt. Maharaji on the ground that Ram Nihore died in 1940 and not in 1927 as claimed by the petitioners and that after his death her mother Smt. Pachui was rightly mutated in the revenue records in his place. The rights of Smt. Pachui were never challenged by the petitioners for this long period of 28 years. On the other hand they themselves got one gift deed for two-third share in the land in dispute executed in their favour from her. This being so, they are now estopped from challenging the rights of Smt. Pachui. 3. All the three consolidation authorities have decided against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved by their orders the petitioners have come upto to this Court for redress. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. All the three consolidation authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact that Ram Nihore died in 1940 and not in 1927 as claimed by the petitioners and, therefore, Smt. Pachui was rightly mutated in the revenue records in his place. This being essentially a finding of fact cannot be interfered Within the writ jurisdiction more so when Smt. Pachui executed two gift deeds, one for two third share in favour of the petitioners and the other for one-third share in favour of her daughter Smt. Maharaji. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.