JUDGMENT Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as also Sri Suresh Chandra Dumka, Advocate, holding brief for Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar (for short D.D.C.), (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) whereby the D.D.C. has dismissed the Revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) bearing No. 52/55 of 1998-99 of the petitioner. 3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, according to the petitioner are that the father of the petitioner held certain landed property in village Ajitpur. The father of the petitioner namely Sunder Lal died when the petitioner was only two years old. According to the petitioner, under the orders of the then District Judge, Kumaun at Nainital, cousin of his father, namely Moti Ram, son of Choote Lal was appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor. Land of Khata No. 103 of village Ajitpur was wrongly entered in the land record in the name of Moti Ram, guardian of the petitioner, who died issueless. The land of Khasra No. 753 was entered in revenue records in the name of father of the petitioner. According to the petitioner himself, one Sri Murari Lal (grandfather of the respondent no. 4) had filed his objection under Section 9-A(1) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer, Kichha on the basis of his adverse possession over that land. 4. Proceedings of Suit Nos. 959, 960 and 961 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act pending before the Consolidation Officer, Kichha were going on. Ultimately, the relevant suit nos. 959, 960 and 961 were decided by the Consolidation Officer, Kichha by order dated 28.11.1988 in favour of said Murari Lal and the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Consolidation Officer, Kichha. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 33 of 1988 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Nainital (for short SOC). However, the appellate court did not find favour with the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.2.1989. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal no. 33 of 1988 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Nainital (for short SOC). However, the appellate court did not find favour with the petitioner and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.2.1989. Further aggrieved by the order of the S.O.C., the petitioner filed a revision before the D.D.C. Udham Singh Nagar, which too was dismissed by the order impugned in the present writ petition. 5. From a perusal of the record as is also admitted to the petitioner, it is obvious that the dispute relates in respect of the land belonging to the deceased Moti Lal, who is said to have died issueless. The petitioner has not challenged that Murari Lal had not been in illegal possession of the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer has given a categorical finding that during the partal made by the consolidation authorities, possession of Murari Lal, who was grandfather of the respondent no. 4 was found over Gata No. 753 of Khata no. 103 of village Ajitpur. 6. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the dispute relates to the land left by deceased Moti Ram, who was a cousin of the father of the petitioner, and had died issueless. The dispute does not relate to the property left by the father of the petitioner, who had died when the petitioner was a minor child. 7. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because deceased Moti Ram was allegedly appointed guardian of the minor, i.e. petitioner Jyoti Swarup, son of late Sri Sunder Lal, therefore, the land in dispute belonging to the guardian shall devolve upon the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any legal footing. It would suffice to mention that there are other important factors, which are to be dealt with by the consolidation courts. In the memo of writ petition also, it has not been stated any where by the petitioner that Murari Lal, the grandfather of respondent no. 4, had not been in adverse possession of the land belonging to late Moti Ram at any point of time, which is the subject matter of dispute. The consolidation officer has recorded a finding that the grandfather of respondent no. 4, had not been in adverse possession of the land belonging to late Moti Ram at any point of time, which is the subject matter of dispute. The consolidation officer has recorded a finding that the grandfather of respondent no. 4, late Murari Lal was found in possession over Gata No. 753, which was recorded in the name of deceased Moti Ram, hence on the basis of adverse possession. Entry of adverse possession (Class-9) was made in accordance with Rules after issuance of PA-10 and it was held that he got Bhumidhari transferable rights in the land in dispute and, accordingly, objections were allowed by the Consolidtion Officer vide order dated 28.11.1988. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal and thereafter in revision before S.O.C. and D.D.C. respectively. 8. It is pertinent to mention that since the deceased Moti Ram had died issueless and as per finding of the trial court, there was no legal heir of the deceased. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of evidence led by said Murari Lal has given a categorical finding that no proceeding for eviction was ever drawn by the original tenure holder against Murari Lal, therefore, on the basis of adverse possession, impugned order was passed in favour of grandfather of the respondent no. 4. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the court concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675] that “On the other hand, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction”. The finding of adverse possession is a finding of fact recorded by the courts below on proper appraisal of evidence, which cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. The finding of adverse possession is a finding of fact recorded by the courts below on proper appraisal of evidence, which cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the possession of the father of respondent no. 4 over the disputed land was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, therefore, no finding of adverse possession could have been recorded in his favour. This argument is misconceived. The finding of adverse possession was recorded by the Consolidtion Officer in favour of Murari Lal, grandfather and not the father of respondent no. 4, because his long standing possession was found at the time of partal also during consolidation proceedings and the original tenure holder never initiated proceeding for his unauthorized possession during his life time. 10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the order of succession in case of death of a male bhumidhar or asami is provided under Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and in sub-section (2) thereof, heirs are given in preferential order. Sub-section (2) of Section 171 of the said Act is being reproduced hereunder :- “(2) The following relatives of the male bhumidhar or asami are heirs subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), namely : (a) widow, and the name lineal descendant in the male line of descent per stirpes : Provided that the widow and the son of a predeceased son how low-so-ever per stirpes shall inherit the share which would have developed upon the predeceased son had he been alive; (b) widowed mother; (c) father; (d) unmarried daughter; (e) brother; being the son of the same father as the deceased, and son of a predeceased brother; the predeceased brother having been son of the same father as the deceased; (f) unmarried sister; (g) married daughter; (h) daughters sons; (j) omitted; (j) father’s father; (k) father’s mother; (l) son’s daughter; (m) married sister; (n) half sister, being the daughter of the same father as the deceased; (o) sister’s son; (p) half sister’s son, the sister having been the daughter of the same fathter as the deceased; (q) brother’s son’s son; (r) father’s father’s son; or (s) father’s father’s son’s son. 11. Even if it may be presumed just for the sake of argument that the grandfather of respondent no. 11. Even if it may be presumed just for the sake of argument that the grandfather of respondent no. 4 was not in adverse possession of the disputed land left by deceased Moti Ram, from a bare perusal of the sub-section (2) of Section 171 of the said U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, it is obvious that the petitioner Jyoti Swarup cannot be said to be an heir of the deceased Moti Ram. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the petitioner cannot succeed in his claim. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material placed before the Court as well as the relevant provision of law, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has utterly failed to show that either of the three courts below has recorded an errorneous finding not based on proper appraisal of evidence. As such I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright. 13. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 14. Interim order dated 16.6.2003 stands vacated.