JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and decree dated 3rd April, 1978 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by Assistant Collector I Class, Allahabad in Suit No. 210 of 1977, under section 229-B of UP ZA and LR Act which has been confirmed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal No. 121 of 1978 vide judgment dated 16th February 1981 and in Second Appeal No. 124 of 1980-81 vide judgment dated 13th July, 1981 passed by Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad respondent no. 1. 2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid litigation are that respondents no. 4 and 5 to the present writ petition, filed a suit being Suit No. 210 of 1977 under section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act against petitioner Lala and State of Uttar Pradesh and Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad for declaration of their tenancy right in plot no. 288, area 8 Biswa situate in village South Malaka, Pargana and Tahsil Chail, Allahabad. The case of the respondents no. 4 and 5 not out in the plaint was that the land in dispute is ancestral property and it was acquired by their common ancestor Bani, who had four sons namely Khetai, Lala, Kalicharan and Ram Charan. Ajai Kumar, respondent no. 4 is the son of Kali Charan. The pedigree has been mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. Their further case is that plaintiffs were tenants of the land in dispute alongwith defendant no. 1 from before the abolition of the zamindari and they have 1/3rd share each in the land in dispute. It was further stated that Kali Charan and Ram Charan were residing away in connection with their business and the ancestral property at Allahabad was being looked after by Lala and Khetai. Their names were recorded in the revenue papers in the representative capacity and Karta Khandan The joint Hindu Family continued upto September, 1964 and the entire agricultural and other property belonged to them jointly. However on 20th September, 1964, there was a family settlement in which all the properties including the land in dispute were partitioned and all the parties were given right to get their names recorded in the revenue papers. However, in July, 1976, defendant no. However on 20th September, 1964, there was a family settlement in which all the properties including the land in dispute were partitioned and all the parties were given right to get their names recorded in the revenue papers. However, in July, 1976, defendant no. 1 Lala alleged himself to be the sole owner of the land in dispute and threatened to interfere in their rights and possession over the same hence necessity to file a suit arose, as the land in dispute was recorded only in the name of defendant no. 1, Lala. The State Government and the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad had no right, title or interest in the land in dispute but as they are necessary legal parties, hence they were impleaded after serving notice under section 80 CPC. The relief sought in the suit was that they may be declared as co-sirdar in possession of the land in dispute alongwith defendant no. 1 Lala and their names may also be directed to be recorded in the revenue papers. The suit was resisted by petitioner Lala by filing a written statement on various legal and factual pleas. The family partition of 1964 was denied and it was claimed by petitioner that the land has been exclusively acquired by him by his own labour and investment of money and the land in dispute was not acquired by Beni common ancestor. In para 11 of the written statement, petitioner alleged that he purchased the land in dispute in auction held in 1965 as evacuee property and since purchase he is exclusive owner of the land and the plaintiffs have no right or concern in the land in dispute. 3. On the aforesaid pleadings the necessary issues were struck by the learned trial court. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The trial court vide judgment dated 3rd April, 1973 decreed the suit and declared respondents no. 4 and 5 as cotenants of the land in dispute alongwith petitioner. The trial court recorded finding that in extract of Khatauni for the year 1320F. Beni, the common ancestor of the parties was recorded as tenant of the land in dispute. In extract of Khatauni for the year 1337F. Khetai son of Beni alone was recorded as tenant. The trial court found that as Khetai was the eldest son of Beni and his name, was recorded in representative capacity. Beni, the common ancestor of the parties was recorded as tenant of the land in dispute. In extract of Khatauni for the year 1337F. Khetai son of Beni alone was recorded as tenant. The trial court found that as Khetai was the eldest son of Beni and his name, was recorded in representative capacity. The name of petitioner Lala was recorded in khatauni of 1348 F which continued. However, the learned trial court believed the family partition of 20th September, 1964 which was admitted by petitioner also in his statement and the deed of the partition was signed by him. The petitioner also claimed in statement that he purchased the land 45, 46 years in the year 1932. The trial court, however, concluded that the property was acquired much earlier in time, than alleged by petitioner and was therefore property of Joint Hindu family. The trial court also noticed the deed dated 21st October, 1965 by which the petitioner purchased zamindari rights from custodian. ON the question of possession trial court after appreciating the statement of the witnesses found that respondents 4 and 5 continued in possession of their shares. It has also been noticed that in khatauni of 1382 F to 1385 F names of Lala, Ram Charan, Kali Charan all sons of Bani were recorded. The trial court found that there was no legal and valid reason for expunging the names of other brothers from revenue papers. ON these findings the suit was decreed. An appeal was filed by petitioner. Before the appellate court the deed dated 21st October, 1965 by which zamindari rights were purchased by petitioner from custodian was not pressed at all. The appellate court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record affirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. Second appeal filed from aforesaid decree was dismissed in limini under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC by Board of Revenue vide order dated 13th July, 1981. Thus all the three courts recorded a concurrent finding that the land in dispute was ancestral property and the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were co-tenants and were in possession of their shares. The family partition of 1964 was accepted. Challenging the aforesaid judgments of the three courts the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Thus all the three courts recorded a concurrent finding that the land in dispute was ancestral property and the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 were co-tenants and were in possession of their shares. The family partition of 1964 was accepted. Challenging the aforesaid judgments of the three courts the present writ petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5 and I have perused the documents on record. Sri G. N. Verma has mainly argued the case of petitioner on the basis of the document i.e. deed of conveyance executed by custodian in favour of petitioner on 21st October, 1965 which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In this document, the property purchased by petitioner has been described in Schedule I in following manner : "Zamindari right in respect of urban agricultural plot 288 (0-8-0) Eight' biaua only, situated in village Malakraj. Tahsil Distt., Alld. belonging to evacuee Sri Abdul Samad." Sri G. N. Verma has vehemently argued that the courts below have failed to consider the legal effect of this document has been ignored. He has submitted that the findings in ignorance of this document cannot be sustained in law. He has relied on section 27 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1954 (Act No. 44 of 1954). The submission of Sri Verma is that every order made by the Officer or an authority under the Act, is final and cannot be questioned in any court of law. Sri Verma has also placed reliance in support of his submission in Mazharul Islam v. Khacher Bux, AIR 1969 AUd. 554, Sunder Singh v. Central Government, AIR 1986 SC 2166 and Smt. Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal, AIR 1989 SC 1764 . Sri Verma has also challenged the finding of the courts below saying that there was a fresh settlement in favour- of Khetai by the zamindari and after the death of Khetai there was a fresh Settlement in favour of petitioner Lala, which was recorded in 1348 F and his name continued since then. The basis for the submission of Sri G. N Varma is that the period of tenancy in extract of khatauni of 1320F. 1333F and 1348F. has been mentioned differently and there is no continuity. The basis for the submission of Sri G. N Varma is that the period of tenancy in extract of khatauni of 1320F. 1333F and 1348F. has been mentioned differently and there is no continuity. The different periods of tenancy mentioned, according to him, clearly established a fresh settlement. It has also been said that in 1348F. the petitioner has been recorded with four years period and the different rent is also mentioned. The learned counsel has assailed the finding of the trial court as perverse and arbitrary. 5. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hard, has submitted that the family settlement took place on 20th September, 1964. This family settlement has been signed by petitioner and by this family settlement, the entire joint Hindu family property including the land in dispute had been partitioned. SRI Radhey Shyam invited my attention towards the statement of petitioner recorded in court of Assistant Collector, I Class wherein he has admitted the family Settlemet Ex I his signature on the family settlement and that the partition had taken place which included the land in dispute. SRI Radhey Shyam has stated that in view of this admission made by the petitioner, the finding of the courts below cannot be assailed. The land in dispute was continuing since time of the ancestors and at the time of the family settlement in 1964 it was treated as Joint Hindu Family Property and there was no question of exclusive acquisition by petitioner alone. SRI Radhey Shyam has submitted that the judgment of the three courts are concluded by findings of fact which cannot be questioned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the deed dated 21st October, 1965 is concerned SRI Radhey Shyam has submitted that the document is illegal and invalid and has rightly been ignored. He has said that it has not been established that it was evacuee property by any evidence. SRI Radhey Shyam has also invited my attention towards relevant rules framed under the aforesaid Act No. 44 of 1954. He has submitted that the document has been executed under rule 91 sub-rule (8), while as claimed by petitioner it was purchased in auction and it should have been under rule 91 sub-rule (15). SRI Radhey Shyam has also invited my attention towards relevant rules framed under the aforesaid Act No. 44 of 1954. He has submitted that the document has been executed under rule 91 sub-rule (8), while as claimed by petitioner it was purchased in auction and it should have been under rule 91 sub-rule (15). SRI Radhey Shyam has further submitted that Zamindari has been abolished and it was admitted by petitioner in para 12 of his written statement and also in ground no 2 taken in the writ petition SRI Radhey Shyam has placed reliance in Rajendra Prakash v. Gyan Chandra, AIR 1980 SC 1206 and Gurbax Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 1990 CRC 1058 (SC). 6. I have thoroughly considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and in my opinion, the suit filed by respondents no. 4 and 5 has been rightly decreed. The family settlement dated 20th September, 1964, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit, clearly established that the petitioner was a party to the family settlement by which the entire agricultural and non agricultural land was partitioned. In his statement, petitioner has admitted this document and his signature. The factum of partition has already been admitted by him. Even if there was some difference in the period of tenancy mentioned in the khatauni of 1320F, 1333F, and 1348F, as the petitioner himself conceded for treating the land as Joint Hindu Property, it was not open to him to dispute this document and his admission regarding the right of respondents no. 4 and 5 The. three courts below considered the oral and documentary evidence at length and then concluded that the land in dispute was coming down in the family since the time of common ancestor Beni and all the sons of Beni are equally entitled and have equal share, in the land in dispute. They had tenancy rights. The findings of the three courts do not suffer from any error of law and in my opinion, the suit has been rightly decreed. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the document dated 21st October, 1968, Annexures-5 to the writ petition,1 is also not acceptable for two reasons; firstly the claim on the basis of this document was not pressed before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the document dated 21st October, 1968, Annexures-5 to the writ petition,1 is also not acceptable for two reasons; firstly the claim on the basis of this document was not pressed before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a plea now at this stage which he had given up. In fact the petitioner was claiming settlement in his favour by zamindar, which has been considered and answered against him This document was not relied on in the arguments advanced before the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Thus orders cannot be assailed for non-consideration of the same. 7. The second reason for not accepting submission of Sri G. N. Verma is that the petitioner purchased zamindari rights of the plots in dispute. It is well known that zamindari rights, proprietory lights and tenancy rights are different in law and could co-exist in respect of land in dispute. Petitioner never claimed correction of record for recording him as proprietor. He was recorded in revenue papers as tenant. The suit was filed for declaration of tenancy right and three courts below have decided tenancy rights of respondents no. 4 and 5 alongwith petitioner. Neither any issue was framed relating to Zamindari rights nor any finding has been recorded by any court for the obvious reason that the zamindari rights over the land in dispute were not in issue in the present suit. The rights flowing in favour of petitioner on the basis of the deed dated 21st October, 1965 are not effected by the decree passed in the present suit. If the petitioner has any rights on the basis of the said deed, he may initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum which will be decided in accordance with law. The courts were neither called upon nor was it legally necessary for them to go into the question of zamindari rights. In my opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in not considering the effect of the document dated 21st October, 1965. For the above reasons, it does not appear necessary for this Court also to consider the case law cited by both sides in support of their submissions. 8. In my opinion, the courts below have not committed any illegality in not considering the effect of the document dated 21st October, 1965. For the above reasons, it does not appear necessary for this Court also to consider the case law cited by both sides in support of their submissions. 8. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, this writ petition has no force and the judgments passed by the revenue courts do not suffer from any error of law. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.