JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.2005 passed in revision No. 1337, by which he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the land of khata No. 434 measuring 40 bigha, 1 biswa, 14 biswansi situated at village Sujawalpur, petitioner was claiming half share. In the consolidation proceeding, petitioner filed objection on 24.1.1987 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who vide order dated 18.2.1987 allotted one third share each to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner challenged the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer before Settlement Officer Consolidation, who vide order dated 29.9.1988 set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter on merit. Before the Consolidation Officer respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statement alleging that the land in dispute was self acquired property of their father, namely, Shri Ram Gulam and not the ancestral property. The claim of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was not the self acquired property of Ram Gulam and was ancestral property of both brothers, namely, Ram Gulam and Ram Sewak who were having half share each and they were in possession of their shares and after the death of Ram Sewak, the petitioner is entitled for half share. In support of the rival claim both the parties have adduced the evidence and produced several persons as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, Bindki passed the ex-parte order dated 20.3.1999 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner and directed to enter the name of the petitioner as co-bhumidhars having half share. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed appeal No. 3837/142/423 under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal vide order dated 9.10.2003 and set aside the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.10.2003 petitioner filed revision No. 1337 of 2003, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Revisional authority held that in khata No. 434 the name of Satish Chand and Sharad Chand, both sons of Ram Gulam were recorded as bhumidhars. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.10.2003 petitioner filed revision No. 1337 of 2003, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Revisional authority held that in khata No. 434 the name of Satish Chand and Sharad Chand, both sons of Ram Gulam were recorded as bhumidhars. From the evidence, it is clear that the respondents have got the right as legal heirs from his father, Ram Gulam. It is clear from P.K.-11 khatauni 1377 to 1380 fasli that this land is entered in the name of individual name of Ram Gulam. The name of Ram Gulam is also entered in 1366-1368 fasli in Aakar Patra 23 and 45 in first round of consolidation proceeding. On the basis of the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.9.1961 and order of the Consolidation Officer the names of Ram Gulam, Laxmi Kant are directed to be entered. It has been further observed that against the order none of the party filed any objection, appeal or revision and, therefore, the order after the first round of consolidation proceeding had become final. Petitioner’s father has also not filed any objection, appeal or revision against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is barred under Section 49 of the Act. It has been held that all the disputes relating to co-ownership had been settled in the first round of the consolidation proceedings and, their shares have also been determined. Therefore, raising the issues relating to the share by the petitioner is barred under Section 11 of the C.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence adduced before the authorities below clearly show that the property in dispute was ancestral. He submitted that appellate authority as well as revisional authority have not considered the reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that in this situation proceeding was not barred by Section 49 of the Act. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1979 RD 50 and in the case of Asha Ram v. Ravi Dutt and others, 1985 RD 157. 5. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1979 RD 50 and in the case of Asha Ram v. Ravi Dutt and others, 1985 RD 157. 5. Sri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Consolidation Officer has passed the ex-parte order without considering the facts of the case, which have been considered in detail by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and by the revisional authority. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the revisional authority have not been disputed at all and, therefore, on the undisputed fact that the issue relating to the co-ownership and the shares between the parties in respect of the property in dispute have already been settled in first round of consolidation proceeding, which has not been disputed and challenged. It is not open to the petitioner to raise the issue again in the second round of consolidation proceeding claiming half share. The claim of the petitioner is accordingly, barred by Section 49 of the Act as well as Section 11 of the C.P.C. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed by this Court on 19.9.2005 to file supplementary affidavit annexing the copy of the objection and the material to show whether his father was alive when the consolidation proceeding took place and file the relevant documents to show that on the date of death of his father he was minor and documents in support of the claim that when the earlier consolidation proceeding took place, petitioner was minor and hence he could not file any objection in the consolidation proceeding. Further time was sought but the supplementary affidavit has not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that in the first round of consolidation proceeding in the year 1961 the issue relating to the ownership and shares have been adjudicated between the parties and the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer/Consolidation Officer dated 30.9.1961 had been passed in this regard. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner’s father nor by the petitioner by way of any objection, appeal or revision. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner’s father nor by the petitioner by way of any objection, appeal or revision. Therefore, the said order had become final and it was not open to the petitioner to raise the same issue in the second round of consolidation proceeding. Revisional authority has rightly held that the claim of the petitioner was barred by Section 11 of the C.P.C. and 49 of the Act. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly irrelevant and are distinguishable on the facts and are not applicable to the present case. Finding of the revisional authority is finding of fact based on the material on record. 8. In view of the above, petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. ————