JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.12.2005, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra by which the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation were reversed and Basic year entry in the name of Contesting Opp. Parties were directed to be maintained. 2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioners urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated in law and is liable to be quashed. He further urged that petitioners perfected title of land in dispute being in possession otherwise in accordance with law and order of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation declaring petitioners as Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights by virtue of being in possession for more than thirty years was passed in accordance with law. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation reversing orders of Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer, Consolidation is wholly untenable in law. He also urged that the reasons given by Deputy Director of Consolidation are unsustainable in law. 4. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for petitioners and also carefully gone through the materials on record. 5. This Court is satisfied that the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record and the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were rightly recorded in accordance with law on the basis of appraisal of evidence on record. Petitioners cannot perfect any title on the basis of entries relied upon by them. 6. In the Basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Koka, widow of Muli, Antram and Hari Babu, both sons of Charanji. Koka was widow and Hari Babu and Antram were minors. Petitioners filed an objection claiming that they are in possession of land in dispute for more than thirty years and being so they have perfected title by operation of law under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed objection of petitioners. Revision preferred by Contesting Opp. Petitioners filed an objection claiming that they are in possession of land in dispute for more than thirty years and being so they have perfected title by operation of law under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed objection of petitioners. Revision preferred by Contesting Opp. Parties was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering facts and circumstances borne out from the record Revisional Court found Koka was widow and the two sons Hari Babu and Antram were minors who rightly explained delay in filing Revision and the delay in filing Revision was rightly condoned in the facts and circumstances of the. case as well as materials on record. 7. The Court is also satisfied that requirement of continuous hostile possession/otherwise in accordance with law is not proved by the petitioners. The entry of possession was neither continuous nor made in accordance with provisions of Land Record Manual. Entries were made without notice to the recorded tenureholders. The finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that adverse possession of father of petitioners cannot be tagged with that of petitioners in the fact of the case when there is no evidence of continuous possession does not suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record. Even otherwise also claim of hostile possession against a widow or a minor will not give any Bhumidhari right to petitioners under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that with effect from 13th October, 1971 twelve years continuous and hostile possession otherwise in accordance with law as required is not proved and petitioners did not perfect any title under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and further the materials on record do not prove continuous twelve years possession of petitioners. These findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation also do not suffer from any error of law. Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that Contesting Opp. parties filed Revision within limitation after attaining majority. This finding does not suffer from any perversity. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was rightly passed in accordance with law. Deputy Director of Consolidation rightly held that Contesting Opp. parties filed Revision within limitation after attaining majority. This finding does not suffer from any perversity. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was rightly passed in accordance with law. Orders passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer were rightly reversed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering oral and documentary evidence available on record and relevant law on the point. 10. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———