JUDGMENT S.R. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the Additional Commissioner. Bareilly dated 15-2-1988, dismissing the appeal arising out of an order dated 30-7-1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Bareilly in case no. 55 of 1974 u/s 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holding Act. 2. I have heard Sri G.N. Verma, counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.N. Singh and Standing Counsel for the Respondents. The brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are as follows : A notice under U.P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act was issued u/s 10(2) of the Act to Smt. Chandra Devi who have been impleaded as Respondent No. 4 to the writ petition. Smt, Chandra Devi filed an objection against the notice and the Prescribed Authority declared 1.95 Hectare in terms of irrigated land as surplus. On 3-2-1976 Petitioner filed an objection praying that he is interested party and as such his objection be heard and decided on merit. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner filed a restoration application and the case was restored but thereafter again the Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the Petitioner against said order both the parties, Petitioner and Smt. Chandra Devi went in appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was heard by Additional District Judge, Bareilly who by his order dated 6-10-1981 set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority on 12-11-1979 and 24-9-1979 and remanded the case for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Prior to this the District Judge by his order dated 31-8-1971 set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 11-10-1978 and remanded the case with the direction that the Petitioner Rang Bahadur Bhartiya be impleaded as party and his title should be decided. There was a further direction that the points given by Smt. Chandra Devi be also considered regarding irrigated and unirrigated land. The Prescribed Authority after impleading Petitioner as a party gave opportunity of filing objection and producing the evidence. The main objection of the Petitioner was that Respondent No. 4 had remarried with Ram Bahadur after the death of her husband as such she has lost her right in laud in suit. The disputed plots are in his possession for a very long time and he was matured adverse right in the land in dispute. The main objection of the Petitioner was that Respondent No. 4 had remarried with Ram Bahadur after the death of her husband as such she has lost her right in laud in suit. The disputed plots are in his possession for a very long time and he was matured adverse right in the land in dispute. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties and after considering the matter dismissed the objection of the Petitioner. Against this order Petitioner filed an appeal as appeal no. 21 of 1987 u/s 13 of the Ceiling Act before Commissioner, Bareilly but it was transferred to Additional Commissioner, Bareilly who by his order dated 15-2-1988 dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition. 3. Sri G.N. Verma appearing for the Petitioner has very strongly urged that Respondent No. 4 who was the vidow of the elder brother of the Petitioner Shyam Bahadur who died in 1960 and thereafter she remarried with Ram Bahadur brother of Shyam Bahadur and two daughters were born to her and as she was remarried, she has lost her right u/s 172(1)(B) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act and on account of remarriage she has no preferential share u/s 171 also. In support of his contention a number of witnesses were adduced and neither Chandra Devi appeared in the witness box nor the State has contested the case of the Petitioner and as such according to Sri Verma it has been fully proved from the materials on the record in the absence of any rebuttal evidence that the re-marriage is proved and as such the issuance of the notice against Smt. Chandra Devi or treating the property to be of Chandra Devi is misconceived and the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Additional Commissioner, appellate authority both have committed clear illegality in exercise of their jurisdiction in rejecting the objection of the Petitioner and dismissing the appeal. His further attack is on the finding of the two authorities, especially that of the appellate authority, that the judgments are no judgments in the eye of law neither they have discussed or considered the material evidence on the record especially when there was no rebuttal and Smt. Chandra Devi having failed to appear in the witness box and the State does not contest this issue. Authorities have no option except to believe the case of the Petitioner of remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi and Chandra Devi had no necessity nor she was entitled to execute sale deed in favour of 3rd person in the year 1989. 4. In view of his unrecorded statements and other material evidence on record no other conclusion can be drawn except that Smt. Chandra Devi has remarried after the death of her husband with Ram Bahadur. 5. So far as the intervening litigation before the Consolidation Authorities, he pointed out that no finding has been recorded in this regard by the Consolidation Authorities nor the decision of the Consolidation Authorities will stand in the way of the Petitioner. 6. Sri S.N. Singh and S.C. contested matter and according to them the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the appellate authority are findings of facts and they have rightly held that the Petitioner has failed to prove his case and his objection was rightly dismissed. The theory of remarriage was concoction. The mere fact that Petitioner or any other person has not contested the matter by itself is no ground to allow a frivolous plea taken by the Petitioner. Their further contention that it is not a fact that Smt. Chandra Devi has not appeared or she has made any statement so the judgment of the two authorities be set aside is without any substance and any point of fact taken by the Petitioner regarding the remarriage of Smt, Chandra Devi is concoction and before the consolidation authorities prior to the commencement of the Ceiling proceedings the controversy was the subject matter of objection u/s 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Rang Bahadur Bhartiya v. Ram Bahadur and others and the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 7-5-1971 dismissed the objection in respect of khata nos. 23, 50, 60 and 59. His objection regarding remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi was also rejected nor his claim regarding l/6th share of khata no 60 was allowed and in view of the finding of the Consolidation Officer that khata no. 66 was the common benefit and in a representative capacity. All the 4 brothers of the Petitioner were held to be owner of l/4th share each Petitioner set up a case of adverse possession in consolidation proceedings and after a detailed discussion consolidation Officer rejected this plea. 66 was the common benefit and in a representative capacity. All the 4 brothers of the Petitioner were held to be owner of l/4th share each Petitioner set up a case of adverse possession in consolidation proceedings and after a detailed discussion consolidation Officer rejected this plea. He also took into note of the fact that witnesses adduced on behalf of the Petitioner before the Consolidation Officer to prove remarriage have failed to do so as such the question of any interference against such an order does not arise. 7. Having considered the respective arguments and having perused the orders of the Prescribed and appellate authority as well as the order of the Consolidation Authorities that of the Consolidation Officer and the a Deputy Director Consolidation. The question that emerges for calling for a decision by this Court is whether the Petitioner has been able to prove remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi after the death of her husband Shyam Bahadur and the answer of the controversy depends on the answer to this question " one way or the other. It is true that the appellate Court has not considered the matter at great length and nevertheless the appellate Court has explained the matter and come to the conclusion that Petitioner utterly failed to prove that Smt. Chandra Devi remarried with Ram Bahadur and on this ground she has lost her right. The Prescribed Authority has also taken note of this fact that the Petitioner adduced oral evidence in support of his contention prior to the order dated 12-11-1979 too when the matter was considered on remand by the Prescribed Authority. He was allowed opportunity but he did not appear for cross examination and ultimately the finding was recorded by the Prescribed Authority that the Petitioner has failed to prove the remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi with Ram Bahadur. 8. As regards the claim of the Petitioner of adverse possession the Prescribed Authority after considering the material evidence on the record including the decision of the Consolidation Authorities regarding finding that Petitioner has failed to prove his case of adverse possession: During course of the arguments a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Kehri Singh, father of the Respondent No. 5 and 6 and Pairokar of Respondent nos. 4 to 8 along with this supplementary counter affidavit a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer has also been filed. The Consolidatiou Officer on the question of remarriage framed issue no. 5 regarding the following findings : Issue No. 5. - This issue is regarding remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi with Ram Bahadur. This issue was framed on 6-7-1986 about three years from the filing of the objection. There is no eye witness of remarriage and alleged by Ram Bahadur nor any witness has deposed that the daughter was born to Smt. Chandra Devi in his presence. There is no documentary evidence in support that she is a wife of Ram Bahadur or any daughter was born with the union of this person. The marriage is not proved. 9. Consolidation Officer further recorded a finding that the claim of the Petitioner of exclusive right by virtus of adverse possession in khata no. 66 which is of 71 Bigha 15 Biswa 6 Biswansi was not found correct and he was held to be co-sharer to the extent of 1/2 share. His case of adverse possession against the entire khata was not found to be proved from the record. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was already filed alongwith the stay vacation application, copy of which was served on the counsel for the Petitioner on 21-1-1992. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while disposing of the revision of the Petitioner has stated as follows : Chunki Shrimati Chandra Devi apane pati Shyam Bahadur ke bhai Ram Bahadur ko baith gayee is liye bhi uski dusari shadi siddha karna jaruri nahi hai. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken into consideration that there was a case between Zamindar and Shyam Bahadur in which Petitioner was a counsel for Shyam Bahadur. He has also taken note of the fact that Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) both have held that the remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi is not proved. The plea of adverse possession of the Petitioner was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has also recorded a categorical finding that from the materials on the record the Petitioner has failed to prove the remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi with Ram Bahadur. The plea of adverse possession of the Petitioner was also rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has also recorded a categorical finding that from the materials on the record the Petitioner has failed to prove the remarriage of Smt. Chandra Devi with Ram Bahadur. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on materials on record and learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.