JUDGMENT Bhanwar Singh, J.—Mohan Nath has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 28.7.1976, 22.11.1988 and 19.7.1994, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (W) Chandauli, Varanasi Additional Commissioner (First), Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Board of Revenue respectively. 2. The properties involved in the litigation were situated in village Hanumanpur of Varanasi district. The present petitioner Mohan Nath was defendant No. 1 in a partition suit filed by his two brothers, namely, Prabhu Nath and Vireshwar Nath. The plaint case of the said two brother-plaintiffs was that the land of plot Nos. 14/19 and 14/22 and the residential apartments were their ancestral properties and since the three brothers inherited 1/3rd share each, they were entitled to have all the properties partitioned in equal share to that extent. Resisting the plaintiff’s case as pleaded in their plaint, Mohan Nath, the defendant No. 1 of the said suit contended that the plaintiffs were not legally entitled to any relief as all the ancestral properties had already been partitioned by virtue of an award pronounced by the panches of the village. The said award was allegedly delivered by five panches of the village on 28.9.1958. 3. Having scrutinized the parties’ pleadings and the evidence led in support thereof, the Sub-Divisional Officer (W), Chandauli recorded a finding that the two plaintiffs were entitled to have in equal proportion their shares in all the immoveable properties including the small agricultural holding. Mohan Nath was also held to be as share holder to the extent of one third share in all the properties. However, his plea of setting up an award dated 28.9.1958 was rejected. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs’ suit and issued instructions for a preliminary decree to be drawn. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment of the trial court, Mohan Nath preferred an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, Varanasi Division. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (First), Varanasi vide his judgment dated 22.11.1988. Mohan Nath did not lose heart and filed yet second appeal before the Board of Revenue but that too was dismissed on 19.7.1994. 5. In the present petition filed before this Court, Mohan Nath has questioned the propriety and validity of all the three decisions referred to above. Mohan Nath did not lose heart and filed yet second appeal before the Board of Revenue but that too was dismissed on 19.7.1994. 5. In the present petition filed before this Court, Mohan Nath has questioned the propriety and validity of all the three decisions referred to above. According to him, the findings of the three forums to the effect that the said award being not made rule of the Court could not be legally accepted to suffer from legal infirmity as even if the said award was not made rule of the Court, it could well be set up as a defence case. 6. Obviously thus, the only issue which has to be determined by this Court is as to whether the award in question provided a good defence case to be set up by Mohan Nath against their brothers’ claim for partition of all landed and residential properties. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. What is significant to note is that the two brothers of the petitioner, namely, Prabhu Nath and Vireshwar Nath, featuring as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in this petition, challenged the very existence and genuineness of the award in question. According to them, neither any panches were appointed by them nor there arose a necessity of submitting any award. The petitioner filed a copy of the award as Annexure-1 to this petition. It was said to have been submitted on 28.9.1958. It was signed by five panches, namely, Bal Govind Prasad, Jokhu Roy, Kanhaiya Lal, Narottam Prasad and Hashrat Ali. Burden to prove appointment of panches and submission of award by them was on Mohan Nath, which, as can be observed at the very outset, he failed to discharge. During trial, he could not disclose the circumstances in which the award by the panches was said to have been submitted. It also remained undisclosed as to whether the arbitrators were appointed by the Court or the parties themselves agreed to refer their dispute to the panches. The petitioner submitted copies of the statement of the witnesses, who were examined during trial in support of his version. D.W. 1 Satya Narain did not utter a word in his examination-in-chief regarding reference of some dispute to the arbitrators or submission of the award. The petitioner submitted copies of the statement of the witnesses, who were examined during trial in support of his version. D.W. 1 Satya Narain did not utter a word in his examination-in-chief regarding reference of some dispute to the arbitrators or submission of the award. Even in his cross-examination, he stated that he had neither participated in the meeting of any panchayat nor did any act of commission ; rather he watched the proceedings of the panchayat as a silent spectator. However, he was unable to reveal as to what was the outcome of the panchayat meeting. He also conceded that he had not seen any paper. Also he was unable to convey as to when partition by way of award took place. In this way, the testimony of the said witness on the point of award was of no avail. 9. Similarly, the petitioner Mohan Nath, who examined himself as D.W. 2 before the Sub-Divisional Officer failed to discharge the burden which lay upon him. He testified that he and his brothers agreed to refer the dispute regarding all their properties to sarpanch of the village whereupon panches were appointed and an award submitted. He, however, fairly conceded that he had not moved for the said award to be made a rule of the Court nor he had taken any steps for the award being registered. He did not disclose any reason as to why the award was not sought to be made as rule of the Court and also why the panchayatnama was not registered. He admitted that the mutation proceedings regarding the agricultural land were initiated in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer and as a consequence, the names of all the three brothers including himself were recorded as tenure holders. He could not recollect as to whether he insisted or not for recording his own name as owner of the properties which came to his lot by virtue of the award. It was admitted by him that he had not moved even an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking implementation of the award. Obviously thus, the petitioner miserably failed to establish the genuineness of the award. Had any such award been submitted by the panches, there was no reason as to why Mohan Nath should not have acted upon it. In this way, the theory of an award being submitted by the panches has no substance. Obviously thus, the petitioner miserably failed to establish the genuineness of the award. Had any such award been submitted by the panches, there was no reason as to why Mohan Nath should not have acted upon it. In this way, the theory of an award being submitted by the panches has no substance. The decision, Kedar Nath v. Ambika Prasad and others, AIR 1974 All 37 , which has ruled that an award even if not made as rule of the Court can still be set up as a defence to a suit, is not attracted to the facts of this case as the very existence and genuineness of any such award could not be established by the petitioner. 10. Having regard to the discussions made above, it may be observed that the consistent findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in accordance with law. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold that neither any law pertaining to the award has been ignored nor there has been any breach of the principles of natural justice. The decisions in question are based on sound reasonings and they do not suffer from any infirmity factual or legal. 11. In the result, this petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs.