JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—This case of the year 1975 has come up for hearing before the Court after about 34 years of its filing. The matter relates to dispute of title in respect of shares of the contesting parties in Khata No. 18 situate in Village Sekhaunadih, Tappa Hirakpur, Pargana Silhat, District Deoria. 2. Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the contesting respondents as well as perused the record. 3. During the consolidation proceedings, the petitioner, now represented through his legal heirs/legal representatives, had filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, interalia, on the grounds that the property in dispute was acquired by the sons of one Phagu prior to the date of vesting. Before enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land in dispute was Kastkari agricultural land and, therefore, it was joint property of the parties. For convenience, the Pedigree and the family tree is being quoted below : Phagu (Five sons) Phirodhar Paltan Rameshwar Jageshar Paremeshwar (No issue) Mahabir Raghubir Ram Lal Petitioner Now represented by L.H./L.R. Adalat Parsan Darshan Algoo (Resp) (Resp) Banshi (Did not challenge (Resp.) the impugned orders (L.H./L.R.) Respondent Moorat Budhiram Brijlal Jaglal (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) Jai Lal Jawahir Suryamani (Respondent) 4. The petitioner, Mahabir, since deceased, had raised a dispute that Paltan and Phirodhar’s sons should get their share, that is, half share in Khata No. 128, while respondent Nos. 4 to 7, that is, sons and grand children of Jageshwar and Parmeshwar, on the basis of a fraudulently obtained Bhumidhari Sanad, are cultivating half of the agricultural land, indicated in Khata No. 128. In the present case, the Bhoomidhari Sanad was obtained on 31st December, 1949. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was obtained behind the back of the petitioner. 5. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, when the petitioner had acquired knowledge about the said Bhoomidhari Sanad, he had filed a Suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for partition of his share, which was decreed on 30.7.1970. The appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and the matter is now pending in the Board of Revenue. The names of the contesting respondents have been wrongly recorded in the revenue records. The appeal filed against the said decree was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and the matter is now pending in the Board of Revenue. The names of the contesting respondents have been wrongly recorded in the revenue records. In fact, the petitioner’s name ought to have been recorded by separating and defining his share. A written statement was filed before the Consolidation authorities resisting the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress that the property in dispute was jointly acquired by all the sons of Phagu, in respect of which, the petitioner and the other set of respondents had staked claim. During Zamindari days, through a registered deed of 1929, all the five sons of Phagu were given equal share in the disputed property. 6. Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has highlighted this registered deed of 1929 laying stress on the claim of the petitioner in respect of the agricultural land. According to him, the contesting respondents never pleaded about ouster or sought adverse possession over the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer rejected petitioner’s objection on 19.5.1974 against which an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Deoria, which was also dismissed on 3.12.1974. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revision before the respondent No. 1, that is, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, which too was dismissed on 5.7.1975. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Consolidation authorities had committed patent error of law in making out a new case while holding that the property in dispute was not ancestral property. The registered deed of 1929 was ignored by the Consolidation authorities, while deciding the case, which showed that the property was in ancestral acquisition by all the five sons of Phagu. The Consolidation authorities had unnecessarily laid much stress on the Bhoomidhari Sanad issued by the Assistant Collector. The case of the petitioner was not barred by the principles of res judicata as has been held by the Consolidation authorities. The petitioner ought to have been given his share in the property in dispute. The oral and documentary evidences were excluded from consideration, which proved that the property of Khata No. 18 was appurtenant to original Khata No. 128. All the Consolidation authorities have failed to take note of the status and nature of the land in dispute and its origin. The oral and documentary evidences were excluded from consideration, which proved that the property of Khata No. 18 was appurtenant to original Khata No. 128. All the Consolidation authorities have failed to take note of the status and nature of the land in dispute and its origin. It was specifically pleaded before the Consolidation authorities that the property in dispute was, in fact, acquired by all the sons of Phagu and this was also clear from the registered deed of 1929. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in holding that the share of contesting respondents was half and as such the finding is perverse without supported by any evidence on the face of record. The Bhoomidhari Sanad was granted ex parte behind the back of the petitioner and as such no rights can be claimed by the contesting respondents on the basis of the said Bhoomidhari Sanad. The Consolidation Courts have wrongly mentioned a fact regarding Rameshwar (showed as Brother of the petitioner in the Pedigree) gifting his share of land to Jawahar, grandson of Parmeshwar. Rameshwar’s share in the land in dispute could not have been given to Jawahar alone. It was also claimed by the petitioner that he is still in possession of the land in dispute to the extent of his share. 8. Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned orders on various grounds including that all the three Consolidation Courts have committed patent error of law in holding that the Assistant Collector’s order granting Bhoomidhari Sanad in the year 1949, would operate as res judicata. The Bhoomidhar Sanad itself was obtained fraudulently behind the back of the petitioner inasmuch as he was not party to the proceedings granting Bhoomidhari Sanad to Parmeshwar. The property in dispute was acquired by all the sons of Phagu and as such the petitioner could have been allocated his share in the agricultural land in dispute. The agricultural land in dispute was a joint property in Khata No. 128 in which all the parties were co-sharers. The deed of 1929 ought to have been appreciated properly. The plea of adverse possession should have also been dealt with properly by the Consolidation Courts. He has relied upon the judgment reported in 1990 RD 439 (SC), Sitaram v. Chhota Bhondey and others, to assail the Bhoomidhari Sanad. 9. The deed of 1929 ought to have been appreciated properly. The plea of adverse possession should have also been dealt with properly by the Consolidation Courts. He has relied upon the judgment reported in 1990 RD 439 (SC), Sitaram v. Chhota Bhondey and others, to assail the Bhoomidhari Sanad. 9. The writ petition was strongly opposed by Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. He has denied the allegations levelled against the contesting respondents and submitted that, in fact, a fabricated and manufactured case has been set up by the petitioner, Mahabir son of Paltan. The other cosharers, like Adalat and Banshi, co-sharers in the property in dispute, had not raised any such objection, rather they had accepted the claim put forth by sons and grand sons of Parmeshwar. The judgments rendered by all the three Consolidation Courts are just, legal, and proper and the controversy has been properly and legally set at rest by all the three Consolidation Courts. 10. According to learned counsel for the contesting respondents, the petitioner, for the first time, during consolidation proceedings, raised this objection that the land was acquired by common ancestors of the parties. Right from abolition of Zamindari till 31st December, 1973, at the time when the objections were filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had accepted that half of the land in dispute was acquired by Parmeshwar. One brother, Rameshwar, who was issueless, had gifted his share in the land in dispute to Jawahar, grandson of Parmeshwar through a Hibbanama. It had never been the case of the petitioner that it was joint acquisition by the branches of Phagu. In fact, the land in dispute was acquisition of Jageshwar, Rameshwar and Parmeshwar etc., all the branches of Phagu and the share of Parmeshwar thereunder was half. He had spent half of the total amount for acquisition of the entire Khata No. 128. A note to this effect had already been made in the registered deed of 1929 itself. Share of the parties were determined from this deed accordingly. He had spent half of the total amount for acquisition of the entire Khata No. 128. A note to this effect had already been made in the registered deed of 1929 itself. Share of the parties were determined from this deed accordingly. As Parmeshwar had half share in Khata No. 128, he had rightly moved a formal application for acquisition of Bhoomidhari Sanad, after having made deposit of ten times of the annual rent as is provided under the “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949” as a result of which a Bhoomidhari Sanad was granted to him on 31st December, 1949 in respect of half share of the joint Khata. After the Bhoomidhari Sanad was issued, a separate Khata was rightly prepared carving out Khata No. 18. It is wrong to say that the Bhoomidhari Sanad was obtained fraudulently as there is nothing on record to substantiate the false allegations levelled by the petitioner regarding issuance of Bhoomidhari Sanad under the aforesaid Act of 1949. The Bhoomidhari Sanad was issued in the year 1949 whereas the objections were filed in the year 1973, that is, after about 24 years of issuance of the said Bhoomidhari Sanad. The plea of ouster or petitioner’s possession has been raised for the first time in the Hon’ble High Court. It was not pleaded before any of the three Consolidation Courts. It was highlighted before the Consolidation authorities that Parmeshwar had half share in Khata which was acquired jointly. In view of this fact there is no question of having equal share in the joint Khata. 11. According to Sri Pathak, the Bhoomidhari Sanad has remained unchallenged so far. The order passed by the Assistant Collector on 31st December, 1949, issuing Bhoomidhari Sanad, has now become final and binding on the parties. If any one was aggrieved by issuance of the Bhoomidhari Sanad, right to file appeal was available to such aggrieved party as per the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1949. However, neither any appeal was preferred nor any application was filed by the petitioner for about 24 years for cancellation of the Bhoomidhari Sanad and as such Khata No. 18 was rightly recorded exclusively in the name of the contesting respondents being part of Khata No. 128. However, neither any appeal was preferred nor any application was filed by the petitioner for about 24 years for cancellation of the Bhoomidhari Sanad and as such Khata No. 18 was rightly recorded exclusively in the name of the contesting respondents being part of Khata No. 128. The petitioner never prayed for summoning of the original deed of 1929 during pendency of the litigation before the three Consolidation Courts, that is, Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A certified copy of the deed filed by the contesting respondents, which contained a note in the last that the share of Parmeshwar, through whom they claimed their title, was 1/2 and as such letting was made in respect of the half share by the then Zamindar. Parmeshwar was recognised by the Zamindar to be the tenant of the half share. This fact was brought to the notice of the Consolidation authorities dealing with the matter. 12. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation had recorded a finding of fact, based on a gift deed, that the share of Rameshwar, son of Phagu, who died issueless, would go to Jawahar, grandson of Parmeshwar in the land in respect of Khata No. 128. Interestingly, no contest was raised by the petitioner in respect of Khata No. 128. Now the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a turn around by lodging objections during consolidation proceedings. He had accepted share of Parmeshwar throughout right from the days of Zamindari abolition till 31st December, 1973. The petitioner had never been in possession of the disputed Khata No. 18. He had his share in another separate Khata No. 128. The extracts of Khatauni of the years 1375 Fasali, 1377 Fasali and 1377 to 1380 Fasali show their names continued to be recorded. The receipt of making deposit for acquisition of Bhoomidhari Sanad and the original Bhoomidhari Sanad duly approved were also placed on record. 13. Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has also drawn attention of the Court that on the basis of admitted Pedigree/Family Tree none of the lineal descendants of the branches of Phagu, except Mahabir, the petitioner, had filed any objection as regards the share of the contesting respondents, rather they had accepted share of the contesting respondents. 13. Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has also drawn attention of the Court that on the basis of admitted Pedigree/Family Tree none of the lineal descendants of the branches of Phagu, except Mahabir, the petitioner, had filed any objection as regards the share of the contesting respondents, rather they had accepted share of the contesting respondents. On the other hand Adalat and Banshi, the other co-sharers, had admitted before the Consolidation authorities that the contesting respondents, Parmeshwar etc., had half share in the land in dispute. No claim was put-forth by these persons, who are similarly placed with Mahabir, the petitioner. This admission is binding on the parties. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. 15. In the present case, all the Consolidation Courts, that is, the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the sons of Parmeshwar had half share in the land in dispute. The Pedigree and the chronology of events show that Phagu had five sons, namely, Phirodhar, Paltan, Rameshwar (Issueless), Jogeshwar and Parmeshwar. The registered deed executed in the year 1929 has been considered by the Consolidation authorities. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner that certified copy of the deed, as produced by the contesting respondent, contained a note in the last that the share of Parmeshwar, through whom they claim their title, was 1/2. The Zamindar had let out half share of which Parmeshwar was recognised as tenant. As per the deed of 1929, the next important fact is being noted that Parmeshwar alone had applied for issuance of a Bhoomidhari Sanad on the basis of which he had obtained substantial rights of transfer etc. of the agricultural land. He had submitted a formal application, after depositing ten times of the annual rent for grant of Bhoomidhar Sanad as provided under the “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949”. Since he had deposited ten times of the annual rent, he had been granted Bhoomidhari Sanad under the relevant provisions of “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949” in respect of half share in the joint Khata. This Bhoomidhari Sanad is granted under the provisions of Section 6 of the “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949”. Since he had deposited ten times of the annual rent, he had been granted Bhoomidhari Sanad under the relevant provisions of “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949” in respect of half share in the joint Khata. This Bhoomidhari Sanad is granted under the provisions of Section 6 of the “Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949”. Thus, Parmeshwar had acquired Bhoomidhari rights as defined under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. Naturally, all the consequences must follow as a result of issuance of Bhoomidhari Sanad. His legal heirs, contesting respondents, have acquired same rights in the agricultural land, which was defined in the Bhoomidhari Sanad. Thus, all the three Consolidation Courts have rightly rejected claim of the petitioner declaring that he had no share in respect of plots situated in Khata No.18. These plots were acquired jointly as part of Khata No. 128. Out of this Khata, half share was held by Parmeshwar, the predecessor-in-interest and as such a separate Khata No. 18 was rightly carved out in his favour. 16. All the Consolidation authorities as well as this Court has noted that a separte Khata No. 18 was carved out, which was in respect of the Bhoomidhari land recorded in the name of Parmeshwar etc., the contesting respondents. The petitioner had a right to challenge issuance of Bhoomidhari Sanad by filing an appeal, which he did not do. In the present case, the Bhoomidhari Sanad granted to Parmeshwar remained unchallenged for about 24 years. For the first time, it was challenged by filing objections before the Consolidation Officer during consolidation proceedings in the year 1973. All the three Consolidation Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the contesting respondents, that is, Parmeshwar, his sons and grandsons had acquired half share independently. Similarly, Phagu’s son Rameshwar, who was issueless, had executed a gift deed in favour of Jawahar, grandson of Parmeshwar, which too had remained unchallenged throughout. His share in the joint Khata No. 128 went to Parmeshwar’s grandson Jawahar. The petitioner did not challenge this event either, rather he has accepted this arrangement. The petitioner is entitled to claim his share out of remaining half share in Khata No. 128. 17. All the three Consolidation Courts have dealt with the matter in detail and appreciated oral and documentary evidence put-forth by the parties, chronology of events and arguments advanced by the parties. The petitioner is entitled to claim his share out of remaining half share in Khata No. 128. 17. All the three Consolidation Courts have dealt with the matter in detail and appreciated oral and documentary evidence put-forth by the parties, chronology of events and arguments advanced by the parties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, while exercising powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is fully empowered and has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order after appreciating facts and law. The said authority has rightly held that there is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute was acquired by father of petitioner-Mahabir. To sum up, the land in dispute was jointly acquired by the branches of Phagu wherein share of Parmeshwar was half . In the year 1949, Parmeshwar was granted a Bhoomidhari Sanad thereof as a result of which Khata No. 18 was carved out in respect of his share. In this Khata No. 18, name of Parmeshwar continued since 1949 and after his death, his main lineal descendants, as indicated in the Pedigree, were brought on record. Further, this Court has noted that the other branches of Phagu, except petitioner-Mahabir, had never raised any objection regarding revenue entries, share and title etc. of Parmeshwar and his legal heirs. No objections were filed by any other branches of Phagu in respect of Khata No. 128 wherein the name of petitioner-Mahabir continued alongwith other co-sharers. The Consolidation authorities made declaration that the contesting respondents have no other right in respect of Gata No. 128, except for the share of Rameshwar, who had executed a gift deed in favour of Jawahar, grandson of Parmeshwar. The Khatauni entries of 1375, 1377 and 1378 to 1380 Fasali have shown that the names of the tenureholders continued to be recorded and there is no justification to seek alteration in the revenue entries without there being any basis or reason. The petitioner has failed to produce any direct oral or documentary evidence before the Consolidation authorities or before this Court, while filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to substantiate his allegations and claim. The petitioner has failed to produce any direct oral or documentary evidence before the Consolidation authorities or before this Court, while filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to substantiate his allegations and claim. This Court as well as the Consolidation Courts have noted admission of other co-sharers, such as Adalat and Banshi, who had, in fact, admitted that the contesting respondents have half share in the land in dispute and certainly this admission is binding on the petitioner. 18. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances of the case. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall stand discharged. The Revenue and Consolidation authorities shall make appropriate entries in the revenue and consolidation records. All the necessary consequences shall follow. 20. No order as to cost. ————