R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11. 4. 1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer, 3. 2. 1976 passed by the Settlement Officer consolidation and 18. 12. 1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur. ( 2 ) DISPUTE relates to plot No. 134 measuring area 2 bighas, 7 biswas and 7 biswansis, for short, the plot in dispute, situated at village Dullahpur, pargana Zamania, district Ghazipur. In the basic year, the name of respondent No. 4 was recorded over the plot in dispute in the revenue papers as sirdar. Petitioners filed an objection claiming that the plot in dispute was their ancestral property. It was the sir land of which the petitioner have become bhumidhar after enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act; that the plot in dispute was situated on the other side of the river Ganges. Respondent No. 4, Muneshwar Rai who was distantly related to them was resident of village Revtipur, which was also situated on the other side of the river. The said plot was given to the said respondent by way of private arrangement, i. e. , by way of mutual exchange and as a temporary arrangement in lieu of plot Nos. 3382/1 and 3492 of village sherpur, which belonged to respondent No. 4 in 1362 fasli. Respondent No. 4 wrongly got recorded his name over the plot in dispute under C. L. R. D. scheme in the year 1366/68 fasli. His name was, therefore, liable to be expunged and their objection was liable to be allowed. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 4, Shri Muneshwar Rai filed a written statement/objection denying the facts stated in the objection filed by the petitioners. It was asserted that he was in possession of the plot in dispute for more than 12 years as sirdar, his name was rightly recorded in the revenue papers in C. L. R. D. scheme. It was also asserted that regarding plot Nos. 3382/1 and 3492/2, no objection was filed by the petitioners in the consolidation proceedings which shows that case set up by them was false. It was also asserted that regarding plot Nos. 3382/1 and 3492/2, no objection was filed by the petitioners in the consolidation proceedings which shows that case set up by them was false. The claim of petitioners was also clearly barred by limitation as no suit was filed within the period prescribed under the law. The objection filed by the petitioners was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, the Consolidation Officer framed as many as 10 issues on all questions, which were involved in the case. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The Consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on the record, recorded findings on all issues in favour of the respondent No. 4 (now 4/1 to 4/3) and upheld the basic year entry by his judgment and order dated 11. 4. 1975. Challenging the validity of the said order, petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The settlement Officer, Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation officer and dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 3. 2. 1976. Petitioners, thereafter, filed a revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the authorities below and dismissed the revision by his judgment and order dated 18. 12. 1980. Hence, the present petition. ( 5 ) ON receipt of the notice of this petition, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of contesting respondent denying the facts stated in the writ petition and pleading that the writ petition was concluded by concurrent findings of fact. It was pleaded that the pedigree of the family given in the writ petition was Irrelevant for the purposes of the present case ; that the respondent No. 4. Muneshwar Rai has been found in possession by all the three authorities ; that theory of exchange and mutual arrangement has been disbelieved by the authorities below and that the findings recorded by the authorities below are all findings of fact, which are based on evidence on the record. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN reply to the counter-affidavit, petitioners have filed a rejoinder-affidavit reiterating and reaffirming the facts stated in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN reply to the counter-affidavit, petitioners have filed a rejoinder-affidavit reiterating and reaffirming the facts stated in the writ petition. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the respondent No. 4 neither pleaded nor proved that his possession over the plot in dispute was without the consent of the petitioners, therefore, he could not mature title over the said plot. It was also urged that adverse possession of more than 12 years should be specifically pleaded and proved for acquisition of title by adverse possession. In the present case, respondent No. 4 neither specifically pleaded nor proved his adverse possession for the prescribed period, therefore, the authorities below have acted illegally in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and upholding that of respondent No. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited and placed reliance upon the decisions in the case of Syed Mohd. Tahir and Ors. v. Ram Pratap and Ors. , 1995 RD 277 ; chidda v. Board of Revenue and Ors. , 1997 (88) RD 531 and Union of India and Ors. v. Lt. Col. P. S. Bhargava, 1997. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below on the questions of possession, nature of possession, factum of exchange and alleged private arrangement and also on the question of limitation are based on relevant evidence on record. The findings on the question of possession, factum of exchange and alleged private arrangement are findings of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that the respondent No. 4 specifically pleaded and proved that his possession over the plot in dispute was without the consent of the petitioners and otherwise than in accordance with the provision of the act. The petitioners have failed to file suit within the period of limitation, therefore, the authorities below committed no mistake of law and fact in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and upholding that of respondent No. 4. The writ petition, according to him, has got no merit and the same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost. The petitioners have failed to file suit within the period of limitation, therefore, the authorities below committed no mistake of law and fact in rejecting the claim of the petitioners and upholding that of respondent No. 4. The writ petition, according to him, has got no merit and the same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record of the case. ( 10 ) THE petitioners specifically admitted in their objection that the plot in dispute was in possession of respondent No. 4. It was also admitted by them that it was in the year 1366 fasli that in C. L. R. D. scheme the respondent No. 4 illegally got recorded his name over the plot in dispute as sirdar. It is also admitted to them that within the period prescribed under the law, suit for ejectment of respondent No. 4 was not filed. The said respondent, thus, acquired his title over the land in dispute in accordance with the provision of Section 209/210 of the U. P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, the petitioners have failed to prove that the plot in dispute was exchanged with plot numbers 3382/1 and 3492/2 which, according to them, were situated in village Sherpur, this side of the river Ganges. The authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on this aspect of the matter. It has also been held that if the claim of the petitioners was correct, they should have filed objection with respect to aforesaid two plots claiming their rights in the same on the basis of the alleged exchange but no such objection was filed before the consolidation authorities by them. The Deputy Director of consolidation was right in holding that according to the petitioners own case, the exchange is alleged to have been made after enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act. The exchange could be made in accordance with the provision of Section 161 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which reads as under : "161. The exchange could be made in accordance with the provision of Section 161 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which reads as under : "161. Exchange.-- (1) A bhumidhar may exchange with : (a) any other bhumidhar land held by him, or (b) any gaon sabha or local authority, lands for the time being vested in ft under Section 117 : provided that no exchange shall be made except with the permission of an Assistant Collector who shall refuse permission if the difference between the rental value of land given in exchange and of land received in exchange calculated at hereditary rates is more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value. (1a) Where the Assistant Collector permits exchange, he shall also order the relevant annual registers to be corrected accordingly. (2) On exchange made in accordance with Subsection (1), they shall have the same rights in the land so received in exchange as they had in the land given in exchange. " ( 11 ) THE aforesaid Section clearly provided that no exchange shall be made except with the permission of the Assistant Collector, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was right in holding that in accordance with the provision of aforesaid section, the permission of Assistant Collector was necessary for exchanging the plots. On the record, there was not an iota of evidence to show that permission for exchange was either applied for or was granted, therefore, the theory of exchange was unbelievable and otherwise illegal. So far as the question regarding pleading and proof of unauthorised and Illegal possession is concerned, a joint reading of paragraph Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the objection, a true copy of which is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 4, clearly reveals that he has asserted that his possession was not permissive, his name was recorded over the plot in dispute as sirdar as he was in possession of the said plot. The petitioners had no concern with the same and that no suit within the period prescribed under Section 209/210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed, therefore, their claim was also barred by limitation. The petitioners had no concern with the same and that no suit within the period prescribed under Section 209/210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed, therefore, their claim was also barred by limitation. So far as the question of adverse possession is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the same should be specifically pleaded and proved. The cases cited by him, referred to above, also support his submission. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that adverse possession should be specifically pleaded and proved but in the present case, the question of adverse possession was not at all involved, neither the authorities below have held that the respondent no. 4 perfected his title over the land in dispute by the adverse possession, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the decisions referred to above have got no application to the facts of the present case. I need not go into detail of the facts of the aforesaid case and law laid down in the said cases. ( 12 ) AS stated above, the authorities below have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the questions of fact involved in the present case, which are based on the relevant evidence on record. It has also been rightly held that the claim of the petitioners over the land in dispute was clearly barred by limitation as no suit for possession was filed by them against the contesting respondent No. 4 within the period prescribed for the same inspite of the fact that petitioners knew that it was in the year 1366-68 fasli under the C. L. R. D. scheme, he got his name recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. ( 13 ) THE writ petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. .