Honble PARIHAR, J.–The land originally belonged to Ram Chandra son of Bholu. The above Ram Chandra divided his land into two equal portions for his sons Prabhu Lal and Ram Narayan. Since Prabhu Lal was minor at the relevant time, his mother i.e. wife of Ram Chandra, was nominated as guardian of Prabhu Lal. Necessary entries were also made in the revenue record accordingly. At the time of settlement also, the land in question had been entered in the name of Prabhu Lal under the guardianship of his mother. Subsequently, after Ceiling Act having come into force, the proceedings were drawn against the above Prabhu Lal. The S.D.O. Concerned held that there has been 66.37 standard acres in excess in the name of Prabhu Lal and the same was ordered to be acquired vide order dated 14.12.1971. The above order passed by the S.D.O. concerned was upheld upto the Board of Revenue. The petitioner claimed that his mother should have been entered as co-sharer in the land in question at the time of settlement and the ceiling proceedings against the petitioner should have been decided only after setting apart the independent share of his other. Against the order of the courts below, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court. Though holding that objections could have been filed by the co-sharer or co-sharers at the time of the settlement operations and if a wrong entry has been made that could be get corrected by moving the concerning authorities or even by filing a suit, however, remanded the matter back to the S.D.O. vide order dated 13.3.1984 with the directions that the S.D.O. may consider the objections of the petitioner for wrong entries made in the settlement record. (2). On remand of the matter, the S.D.O. after verifying the records, held that the entries in the revenue as also settlement record were correct and again 66.37 standard acres land in excess was ordered to be acquired. The order dated 27.3.1989 passed by the S.D.O. Was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 30th December, 1989 and further by Board of Revenue vide order dated 11.2.1994. The Review filed by the petitioner had also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 7.5.1996. Hence the present second writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, as referred above. (3). The Review filed by the petitioner had also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 7.5.1996. Hence the present second writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below, as referred above. (3). After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders passed by the courts below. (4). There is no dispute that even prior to settlement the land in question was entered in the name of Prabhu Lal, may be as a minor. Even after settlement the same entries were made. The entries were never challenged by anybody at any point of time before any competent court. The land was in the name of Prabhu Lal. His mother never claimed any portion or share in the land nor filed any suit for correction in the entries before appropriate forum. The right of co-sharer can only be decided by a competent court in a regular suit. Since partition has been done by father of Prabhu Lal long back, the mother of Prabhu Lal could claim her portion as co-sharer only from the land originally belonged to her husband at the relevant time or even subsequently but in no case she could claim the portion of land of her son as co-sharer until and unless such right had been given to her by her husband Ram Chander. Under the Law the S.D.O. cannot make necessary corrections in the revenue record in ceiling proceedings. Even any observations made by this Court shall not create any such right. The prayers made by Prabhu Lal, who is represented by his legal heirs i.e. the petitioners in the present writ petition on the face of it appear to be wholly misconceived and the same have been made only to save land sought to be acquired. In view of concurrent findings of all the courts below, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court. (5). The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.