A. P. SAHI, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the supplementary affidavit filed today. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the Gaon Sabha questioning the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5. 12. 2008 whereby the revision filed by the contesting respondent No. 4, who has transferred the land to respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 represented by Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha Advocate, has been allowed on the ground, that there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to have restored the appeal and to have proceeded to hear the matter on merits. However, a perusal of the revisional order also indicates that in view of the powers conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U. P. C. H. Act, he has also entered into the merits of the main contention namely the dispute between the parties relating to the adoption of the respondent No. 4 Shyam by the original tenure holder late Yadi Ram. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was in public interest that the appeal had been restored by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and that the matter ought to have been rightly allowed to have been decided on merits by the Settlement Officer Consolidation in view of the dispute raised as the property had vested in the Gaon Sabha. 4. A perusal of the memo of revision which was filed, had questioned the validity of the restoration order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, but a perusal of the order indicates that all the issues that were primarily involved on merits including the issue of adoption had also been contested by the Gaon Sabha while? opposing the revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority considered the facts recorded by the Consolidation Officer, which was to the effect that the entire ceremony of adoption which stands recorded in the deed in favour of the respondent No. 4 had been proved by production of the witnesses who were then available. Not only this, full opportunity was given to the Gaon Sabha and to the private objector Ram Swaroop to lead evidence. The burden of proof had already been discharged by the objector and the onus was shifted on the Gaon Sabha to disprove the adoption. 5. Not only this, full opportunity was given to the Gaon Sabha and to the private objector Ram Swaroop to lead evidence. The burden of proof had already been discharged by the objector and the onus was shifted on the Gaon Sabha to disprove the adoption. 5. A categorical finding has been recorded by the Consolidation Officer that no evidence was led to disprove the adoption as claimed by the respondent No. 4 for which full opportunity was afforded. This finding of the Consolidation Officer was again put to test before the revisional authority and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the facts on record arrived at the same conclusion which is to the effect that the adoption had already been proved. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise an issue that the respondent No. 4 Shyam had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for a declaration on the basis of the said adoption deed. The said suit had been allegedly dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the said suit having been dismissed in default, the respondent No. 4 lost his rights therefore nothing further could have been said on the basis of the said adoption. He contends that in view of the aforesaid fact there was no occasion for the Consolidation Officer to entertain the objection and allow the same. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and it is also clear from a perusal of the order, that no such order was filed before the Consolidation Officer or before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to prove that such a proceeding had taken place. Even otherwise the matter had been dismissed in default. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the said judgment would operate as resjudicata or estoppel against the respondent No. 4. The question as to whether the adoption was valid or not, has been contested before the consolidation authorities including the revisional Court without raising any such issue. was void keeping in view Section 5 read with Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the respondent No. 4 was 20 years of age as on the date of the execution of the adoption deed. was void keeping in view Section 5 read with Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the respondent No. 4 was 20 years of age as on the date of the execution of the adoption deed. Unfortunately, the said paragraph 36 of the writ petition has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge by the Lekhpal of the Gaon Sabha. The said plea has been raised for the first time before this Court. Neither any pleading averment or submission appears to have been made before any of the Courts below. No finding has been returned because of this reason. Learned counsel could not substantiate his contention by pointing out any such effort before the consolidation authorities. This was a pure question of fact which could have only been raised before the Court below and cannot be entertained for the first time by this Court, that too even on the strength of the alleged personal knowledge of the present Lekhpal of the village. There is nothing sworn on record and the Lekhpal cannot have nor does he claim to have the manner in which he acquired personal knowledge of the age of the respondent No. 4. This plea is therefore also without foundation in fact as well as in law and is accordingly rejected. 9. The adoption deed is a registered document and according to Section 16 of the 1956 Act,, there is a valid presumption in favour of such document. The petitioner having miserably failed to dislodge the same, the adoption cannot be discarded. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances nothing could be pointed out before this Court that could dislodge the adoption which was proved on behalf of the respondent No. 4 before the authorities below. t1. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further recorded a finding to the effect that the restoration application had not been signed by the Gram Pradhan and it was only signed by the panel lawyer. The aforesaid finding has not been successfully assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no occasion for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. .