JUDGMENT Per Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the following impugned orders : (i) Order dated 07.6.2007 passed by respondent no. 1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). (ii) Order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Haridwar at Roorkee passed in no. 781 under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (Annexure-9a to the writ petition). 2. Before dealing the matter in detail, it would be proper to understand the pedigree of Dasaudi who is the ancestor of the parties and whose property/land in dispute is being claimed over by his heirs/parties and for the settlement of the same, they have come before this Court. The pedigree of Dasaudi in the form of a diagram is given below : 3. It is not in dispute that the land was belonging to Dasaudi who had two sons i.e. Gulam Shabir and Gulam Mustafa. Both have died. Gulam Mustafa had two sons namely, Md. Imam and Bhura. They have also died. Bhura died issueless but Md. Imam has one son named Md. Yunus (respondent no. 2) who is alive and hence, the only legal heir of Gulam Mustafa. Gulam Shabir, the other son of Dasaudi had four sons namely, Abdul Khalik, Md. Arif, Abdul Rehman and Moti. Abdul Khalik had four sons namely, Abdul Mallik, Ikhlakh, Phurkan and Irfan. The petitioner i.e. Smt. Sanjeeda is the widow of late Ikhlakh. 4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner’s husband’s brothers (including the husband) had filed objections against Md. Yunus i.e. respondent no. 2 under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act regarding their shares in the land in dispute. After hearing the parties, the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 02.8.1996, on the basis of an entry in Khata No. 11 of Amaldramat Khatoni 1360 fasli, directed to delete the names of respondent no. 2 and Bhura from the revenue record. The learned Consolidation Officer had also determined the shares of petitioner’s husband as 1/16 of the total land Respondent No. 2 has contended that the entry in the Khatoni was fake one and no sale deed with regard to his shares in the land in dispute was ever executed by his ancestors. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, respondent no. The learned Consolidation Officer had also determined the shares of petitioner’s husband as 1/16 of the total land Respondent No. 2 has contended that the entry in the Khatoni was fake one and no sale deed with regard to his shares in the land in dispute was ever executed by his ancestors. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, respondent no. 2 Yunus preferred an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer, Haridwar at Roorkee. It was submitted by the petitioner before the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer that under a correction proceeding initiated before the Tehsildar under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, an order was passed on 15.4.1953 (Annexure 3) to expunge the names of respondent no. 2 and Bhura from the land holdings. It was alleged by the petitioner that the ancestors of respondent no. 2 had sold their shares in the land in dispute. On behalf of respondent no. 2, it was contended that the above correction proceeding under Section 33/39 was never initiated and the said entry in the Khatoni is fake one. The learned Officer gave a categorical finding that the entry in the Khatoni is fake one and the order of correction passed by the Tehsildar is without jurisdiction because the power of making such corrections lies with the Assistant Collector/Sub-divisional officer. The petitioner also failed to produce the sale deed which was alleged to have been executed by the ancestors of respondent no. 2. On the basis of undisputed pedigree, the learned Officer vide order dated 16.2.2002 decided the shares of the petitioner as well as the respondent. 6. Aggrieved by the above impugned order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before Deputy Director Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar. The learned Deputy Director Consolidation corroborating the order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on 20th March 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a restoration application that, too, was dismissed on 27.8.2003 for want of prosecution by the Deputy Director Consolidation. 7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the restoration application, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. 987/2003 (M/S) before this court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a restoration application that, too, was dismissed on 27.8.2003 for want of prosecution by the Deputy Director Consolidation. 7. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the restoration application, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. 987/2003 (M/S) before this court. This Court by allowing the writ petition quashed the order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation on restoration application whereby the application was dismissed for want of prosecution and directed to decide the restoration application on merits in accordance with law. 8. Later on, the Deputy Consolidation Officer restored the revision to its original number and thereafter by a speaking order, confirmed the order dated 16.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer in the appeal. 9. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Deputy Director as well as by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 10. I have heard Sri Narayan Datt, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Shah, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter affidavit. 11. As far as the findings of the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer is concerned whereby the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside and further, he decided the shares of the parties on the basis of the pedigree, I find no infirmity in the above order. Keeping in view the fact that Bhura died issueless, the learned Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer has rightly decided the share of respondent no. 2 as half share (1/2) in the land in dispute. The shares were decided on the basis of the evidence rendered before him and the petitioner could not show the document of title in her favour i.e. the sale deed which was alleged to have been executed by the ancestors of respondent no. 2 on the basis of which the names of the respondent no. 2 could be expunged only. Hence, the pedigree is not disputed. Likewise, the Deputy Director Consolidation has also rightly upheld the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer on the above mentioned grounds. 12. In writ jurisdiction, the court cannot sit like of appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. I find no perversity or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer as well as by the Deputy Director Consolidation. 12. In writ jurisdiction, the court cannot sit like of appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. I find no perversity or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer as well as by the Deputy Director Consolidation. The writ petition does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The writ petition is devoid of merit, as such, it is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. 13. All applications stand disposed of accordingly.