JUDGMENT S.R. Misra. J. 1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner Ibrahim Khan has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28-7-1984, by means of which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision riled by the petitioner and allowed two revisions of Abdul Aziz and Shariff The brief facts given rise to this writ petition are as follows :- Properties owned by the petitioner shown in pedigree were declared to be evacuee property and was acquired by the Custodian to the extent of 19/66 share of the total land of 62 Bigha 14 Biswa. Such land acquired by the custodian was subsequently purchased by Ismail Khan, Mohammad Sher and Abdul Aziz. Accordingly a certificate of sale was issued by the Assistant Custodian, Agra on 11-7-1962, giving the details of the land, a copy of which is also on the record as annexure-l to this writ petition. Subsequently, the name of the respective purchasers of their evacuee property was mutated in the papers on the respective land. According to the petitioner the remaining area after excluding the portion acquired by the Custodian and sold, 44 Bigha and 13 Biswa was the remaining land of Khata No. 82 when the notification under section 4 of the CH Act was made and thereafter the Consolidation Authorities are required to decide the shares of the respective parties in this area of 44 Bighas 13 Biswa. 2. In the basic year, the names of Ibrahim, Abdul Aziz and Shaukat, Bundu Khan and Bashir. Manzur Khan, Mohd. Sharif and Latif, Smt. Hamidan, Abdul Aziz, Kaley Khan, Shamshuddin and the Asstt. Custodian were recorded. Five sets of objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer. The first objection was filed by Ibrahim on the ground that the name of Assistant Custodian had wrongly been recorded as the land acquired by the Assistant Custodian had already been purchased by the respective transferees and their names have been recorded He has further pleaded that the name of Bundu Khan was also wrongly recorded as he had been declared evacuee. According to him Aziz Khan s/o Nazir died issueless and hence his name be expunged and thus he claimed 4/9 share. 3. Another objection was filed by Aziz on the ground that the name of Azim s/o Nazir be expunged as he had died issueless. According to him Aziz Khan s/o Nazir died issueless and hence his name be expunged and thus he claimed 4/9 share. 3. Another objection was filed by Aziz on the ground that the name of Azim s/o Nazir be expunged as he had died issueless. Shaukat died leaving a son Ashiq Ali to be his heir. He further pleaded that the name of Sharif and Latif be expunged. Third objection was filed by Anwar Khan Fourth objection was filed by Kaley Khan alias Kalian and the last objection was filed by Smt Khatoon Begum, according to whom her father had got l/4th share which was succeeded by Smt. Hamidan, widow of Bundu Khan. Bundu Khan had also died and Smt. Khatoon Begum claimed herself to be entitled being the daughter of Smt. Hamidan. 4. Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Anwar and Smt. Khatoon Begum and allowed the objection of Ibrahim and Kaiey Khan. The Consolidation Officer held that the name of the Assistant Custodian be expunged in place of Shaukat Ali, the name of his son Ashiq Ali be recorded and at the place of Bundu Khan, Manzur Khan and Ramzani the names of their heir Bashir be recorded and it was further held that the name of Smt. Hamidan be expunged and determined the shares of the parties accordingly including the share of the petitioner as 3/8th. He further held that Smt. Khatun Begum has failed to prove herself to be the daughter of Smt. Hamidan. Six appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. All the appeals were consolidated and disposed of by a common judgment. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that Bundu Khan was never declared evacuee and hence his share comes to 1/4th which was succeeded by Smt. Hamidan. He further held that Smt Khatoon being the daughter of Hamidan also succeeded and hence the Settlement Officer, Consolidation determined the share of Smt. Khatoon Begum as 1/4th and the share of Ibrahim as 17/48th. Three revisions were preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation-one by Abdul Aziz v. Ibrahim, second Ibrahim v. Smt. Khatoon Begum and others and the third Sharif v. Bundu Khan. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the revision of the petitioner, Ibrahim and allowed the other revisions vide his order dated 28-7-1984. 5. Mr. G. N. Verma, appearing as counsel for the petitioner has argued three points before me :- 1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the revision of the petitioner, Ibrahim and allowed the other revisions vide his order dated 28-7-1984. 5. Mr. G. N. Verma, appearing as counsel for the petitioner has argued three points before me :- 1. The determination of the shares by the Consolidation Authorities is erroneous, in-as-much as, the land which was declared to be evacuee property and was sold by the Custodian that land be excluded and thereafter in the remaining land the shares of the parties be determined and the view taken by the Consolidation Authorities in determining the shares of the parties taking the whole area of the original holding i.e. 62 Bigha 14 Biswa before the declaration of the part of the land as excuse property, sold and purchased by the family members. 2. In view of the annexure-2 to the writ petition which is an order of mutation, according to which he was entitled to share of 19/66, he is entitled to his share as per the pedigree and according to him an apparent error has been committed by the Consolidation Authorities in allowing 19/66 shares to other persons also which was beyond the competance of the Consolidation Authorities and they are debared from doing so in view of section 48-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which attaches finality to a decision given by the Custodian which cannot be considered on merits by the Consolidation Authorities or any other authority. 3. The view of the Settlement Officer, (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation holding that Smt. Khatoon Begum is the daughter of Hamidan is erroneous and as a matter of fact it is proved from the materials on the record that she has failed to prove that she is daughter of Hamidan and according to MR. Verma an apparent error has been committed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in recording that finding in favour of Smt. Khatoon Begum. 6. 8 Sri R. S. Misra, appearing for the contesting respondents has tried to justify the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. According to him the determination of the shares is a correct approach to the determination of the shares and is strictly in accordance with materials on record. They have upheld the determination of the rights of the parties before the Custodian. According to him the determination of the shares is a correct approach to the determination of the shares and is strictly in accordance with materials on record. They have upheld the determination of the rights of the parties before the Custodian. There is nothing to suggest that the judgment of the Custodian has been ignored nor there is any mistake in determining the share of the parties. According to him in the basic year the total area of 62 Bigha 14 Biswa was entered in the name of the parties and as admittedly, the share of Baliyar, shafiq and Rustam Khan of the branch of Dheeri was purchased by the petitioner's father Ismail Khan and the share of Bashir Khan and Hamid Khan s/o Ewaz was purchased by Abdul Aziz and Mohd. Sher purchased the remaining share. Reliance was placed by him on the sale certificate, (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) filed by the petitioner. He has farther tried to justify the order controverting the correctness of the allegations of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to follow the orders of the Consolidation Authorities. On the other hard, his order is strictly in accordance with the orders of Asstt. Custodian, Agra and no right can accrue on the petitioner on the basis of annexure-2, an order of mutation even if his name has been mutated in respect of the land which was purchased by 3 persons in the auction sale as per the auction certificate, annexure- 1 and the determination having been made as per the sale certificate, they have strictly acted within the four corners of section 48-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. 7. As regards the question that whether Smt. Khatoon Begum is the daughter of Hamidan or not according to him this is a question of fact and no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction 8. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the Consolidation Authorities. A perusal of the sale certificate, Annexure-1 would go to show that a share of 57/330 was purchased by the petitioner's father Ismail Khan, 19/330 in favour of Mohammad Sher and 19/330 infavour of Abdul Aziz. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties and perused the orders of the Consolidation Authorities. A perusal of the sale certificate, Annexure-1 would go to show that a share of 57/330 was purchased by the petitioner's father Ismail Khan, 19/330 in favour of Mohammad Sher and 19/330 infavour of Abdul Aziz. The relevant portion of the sale certificate, making a mention of the sale infavour of the parties reads as under :- "Certified that s/o Sri Ismail Khan son of Murad Khan Mohammad Sher son of Jahangir Khan and Abdul Aziz son of Azim, residents of village Nagla Mewatl, Tehsil and district Agra have purchased the property detailed in the Schedule below by negotiation held in pursuance of power confreed upon me under section 10 (2) (o) of Administration of Evacuee Property Act. No. XXXI of 1980 on the Twentieth day of February, 1959." and the papers were forwarded by the Assistant Custodian, Agra for incorporating the same to the Tehsildar, Agra for necessary action and mutation, The relevant portion reads as under : - "Copy forwarded to the Teshildar, Agra, for information and necessary mutation to the extent of 57/330 in favour of Sari Ismail Kha, 19/330 in favour of Shri Homannad Sher and 19/330 infavour of Shri Abdul Aziz" A perusal of the admitted pedigree between the parties, except the dispute regarding Smt Khatoon Begum which will be dealt later on the rest of the pedigree is admitted and it has not been disputed before me that the petitioner's father. Ismail purchased the share of the remaining 2 sons of Murad Khan namely Shafiq and Baliyar and the share of Rustam Kha. Thus the original share of Dheeri after the sale of the shares of Shafiq, Baliyar and Rustam Khan and purchased by Ismail, petitioner's father, would remain the same and so far as the claim of the petitioner that by vertue of annexure-2 which states that the name of all the persons who have been declared evacuee be expunged from the holding. The name of Ibrahim be mutated in place of Anwar son of Shafi, Bania son of Murad Khan and Rustam son of Basib Khan over plots mentioned in the report of N T., Agra dated 25-1-1964. The name of Ibrahim be mutated in place of Anwar son of Shafi, Bania son of Murad Khan and Rustam son of Basib Khan over plots mentioned in the report of N T., Agra dated 25-1-1964. Primerly this is an order in the teeth of the sale certificate, annexure-I. A perusal of the annexure-1 would go to show that the total sale of the share was 19/66 and in that the share of the petitioner was 57/330 and 19/330 was the share of Mohd. Sher and 19/330 was infavour of Abdul Aziz. The Consolidation Authorities have determined the shares of the parties strictly in accordance with the sale certificate and the sale certificate being the final Judgment and their rights between the parties so far as the finality of the order of the Custodian is concerned and if the argument of the petitioner is accepted that the order of mutation which is at variance with the order of sale certificate is accepted then the very submission of Sri Verma that finality be attached to the sale by the Custodian is defeated. On other hand when the authorities have taken the sale certificate to be a final and according to that finality as the whole area of 62 Bigha 14 Biswa was entered in the basic year in the name of the parties including the petitioner and respondents and the purchase and sale of the shares of the persons who left for Pakistan their shares have been purchased by the members of their branch. Thus the determination of the shares calculated by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is strictly in accordance with sale certificate and also on facts found that they rightly determined the shares which does not call for any interference by this Court and the submission of Sri Verma that the land which was the subject matter of the sale be excluded and thereafter his share be determined and his further argument that the whole area of that sale which was purchased by the three branches be excluded and included in his holding alone appears to be erroneous submission, and I do not find any force in the argument of Sri G. N. Verma so far as the points no. 1 and 2 are convened It is also necessary to point out that annexure-2 is an order of mutation and no finality can be attached to such an order of mutation specially when the order is in the teeth of the Sale certificate and even If the said order of S.D.O., Sadar, Agra would have admissible, the question of superceding that order over the order of sale certificate would have been erroneous on the part of the Consolidation Authorities. 9. As regards the last point regarding the parantage of Smt. Khatoon Begum, I have considered the submissions of Sri G. N. Verma and I am of the view that the findings recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Smt. Khatoon Begum is the daughter of Hamidan is the finding of fact and no interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. 10. As a result of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation whatever share, which belongs to the petitioner, his original share and the other purchase in the sale from Custodian, the same area has been given to him and when respondent no. I has correctly calculated the share and determined the area accordingly in favour of the petitioner there is no mistake either in law or on fact calling for an interference in the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.