Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Through this writ petition the petition­ers have assailed the judgments passed by the Board of Revenue on 4.1.2010, by the Addi­tional Commissioner on 9.11.1994 and by the Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Kiserganj, Now Mahsi, District Baharaich. 3. It emerges from the record that the peti­tioners are nephews i.e. brother's son of Late Sri Kant Singh in respect of whose land the dispute has arisen. Lt. Sri Kant Singh had died on 15.11.1985 leaving behind his wife Rajhuraji alias Dharma and a married daugh­ter Durga wad. During mutation proceedings before the concerned Additional Tehsildar ob­jections were raised by the petitioners stak­ing their claim in the agricultural land left behind by their Uncle Lt. Sri Kant Singh. The Additional Tehsildar had taken note of the versions of the contesting parties, applying the line of succession as given in Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re­forms Act. He has ordered the mutation in favour of Smt. Raghuraji alias Dharma wife of Sri Kant Singh. The order was passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Kaiserganj, Now Mahsi, District Baharaich on 16.11.1988. It was challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, appellate authority. This appeal was allowed on 5.10.1989. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority Smt. Raghuraji alias Dharma, wife of Late Sri Kant Singh pre­ferred a revision under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act before the Additional Commis­sioner (Judicial) Faizabad. The revision was dealt with, reference was made to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the appellate court's order dated 5.10.1989 be set aside. Accord­ingly the matter was dealt with by the Board of Revenue. It has affirmed the findings re­corded by the Additional Tehsildar in his or­der dated 16.11.1988. 4. Sri Suresh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis on a unregistered will dated 12.11.1985 by which 2/3 of the share in the land in dispute was given by his Uncle Lt. Sri Kant Singh to the petitioners. During course of litigation the said unregistered will was not found to be genuine, legal and valid will by the Additional Tehsildar, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Detailed findings have been recorded by the Court of Additional Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner. Sri Kant Singh to the petitioners. During course of litigation the said unregistered will was not found to be genuine, legal and valid will by the Additional Tehsildar, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. Detailed findings have been recorded by the Court of Additional Tehsildar and Additional Commissioner. These courts have placed reliance on the pro­visions contained in Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as this stood on 15.11.1985 when the tenure holder had died. The relevant provisions of Section 171 is given below:- "171. Subject to the provisions of Sections 169 and 173, when a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below: (a) male lineal descendant in the male line of descent: Provided that the son of a pre-deceased-son how-low-so-ever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the de­ceased if he had been then alive: (b) Widow; (c) father; (d) mother, being a widow; (e) father's father; (f) father's mother, being a widow; (g) widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent; (h) step-mother, being a widow; (i) unmarried daughter; (j) daughter's son; (k) brother, being the son of the father as the deceased; (1) unmarried sister; (m) Brother's son, the brother having been a son of the same father as the deceased; (n) father's father's son; (o) brother's son's son; (p) father's father's son's son. 5. Naturally when at the time of death of the husband i.e. Late Sri Kant Singh his widow/wife Smt. Raghuraji alias Dharma was alive certainly as per above provisions she will be entitled to be owner of the agricul­tural land held by her husband. After her death i.e. on 9.9.1996 her daughter whether mar­ried or unmarried were to entitled for the land in dispute as the land came to a female mem­ber in order of succession as per Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 6. All the three courts have recorded con­current findings of fact in dealing with the matter. These are based on appreciation oral documentary evidence and law. The petition­ers have failed to persuade this Court to form any other opinion other than the one already formed by the Additional Tehsildar, Addi­tional Commissioner and the Board of Rev­enue. 6. All the three courts have recorded con­current findings of fact in dealing with the matter. These are based on appreciation oral documentary evidence and law. The petition­ers have failed to persuade this Court to form any other opinion other than the one already formed by the Additional Tehsildar, Addi­tional Commissioner and the Board of Rev­enue. This Court has taken note that the ten­ure holder Late Sri Kant Singh had died on 15.11.1985, more than 25 years has passed his widow and daughter have been dragged in an unnecessary litigation for all these 24-25 years. 7. This Court is of the view that Rs. 10,000/- be awarded as costs to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent No.4-Durgawati daughter of Late Sri Kant Singh. 8. The Collector, Baharaich, Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Kaiserganj, now Mahsi, Baharaich are directed to implement the or­ders passed by the Board of Revenue and Additional Tehsildar. The concerned entries in the revenue and consolidation records shall be corrected immediately and the possession of the land in dispute shall be provided to the respondent No.4-Durgawati, if the same is not available to her. 9. The compliance report shall be sent by the Collector, Baharaich to the Registry of this Court by 15th June, 2010 and a copy of the said report shall be placed on record of the writ petition. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.