JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar Misra holding brief of Sri R. S. Misra learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 5.3.1980, 22.11.1980, 23.1.1984 passed by respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively. 3. The dispute in the present case relates to land of Khata No. 153 situate in village Dubaulli and the Khata No. 5 situate in village Akbarpur (herein after referred to as the disputed holdings). Khata No. 153 was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of petitioners and one Ram Charan while khata No. 5 was recorded in the basic year khatauni in the name of petitioners only. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed an objections under Section 9A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein after referred to as the Act) claiming co-tenancy rights in the disputed holdings on the ground that the land of the aforesaid holdings was ancestral jointly family property. They further stated that the holdings belonged to one Tejman common ancestor of the parties. They thus prayed that their names be recorded as co-tenure holders alongwith the petitioners in the disputed holdings and they be given half share therein. The case was contested by the petitioners who gave the following pedigree: Tejman Ram Charan Kawal 1———————–—2—————————3—————————–4 Brijraj Khudi Deepraj Abhiraj 4. They further asserted that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Dhanraji and Smt. Shyamraji mother of the respondent No. 5 Vindhyachal were not the daughters of Ram Charan. Since Ram Chandra predeceased his brother Kawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, hence even if it is assumed that Smt. Dhanraji and Smt. Shyamraji were daughters of Ram Charan, the interest of Ramcharan in the land in dispute after his death would devolve upon his brother Kawal, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and not upon his married daughters in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioners further asserted that the petitioners and late Kawal had been in exclusive possession over the disputed holdings since 1959. The petitioners further pleaded hostile title amounting to ouster of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that the petitioners acquired exclusive rights in the disputed holdings by adverse possession, estoppel and acquiescence. 5. The petitioners further asserted that the petitioners and late Kawal had been in exclusive possession over the disputed holdings since 1959. The petitioners further pleaded hostile title amounting to ouster of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and that the petitioners acquired exclusive rights in the disputed holdings by adverse possession, estoppel and acquiescence. 5. The consolidation officer by his order dated 5.3.1980 allowed the objections of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of land comprised in khata No. 153 and held them to be co-tenure holders of the said khata No. 153 but their objection with regard to the land comprised in khata No. 5 was rejected. 6. Against the order dated 5.3.1980 of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were preferred before the Settlement Consolidation Officer by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being appeal No. 330/1681, Abhiraji and others v. Dhanraji and others and appeal No. 330/1680, Dhanraji and others v. Abhiraji and others. The appeal No. 330 of 1680 was filed by the petitioners against part of the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by which he had accepted the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of khata No. 153 while the other appeal No. 330/1681 was preferred by the respondents No. 3 and 4 against the rejection of their claim with regard to khata No. 5 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Both the appeals were heard together by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Padrauna, Deoria and decided by a common order dated 22.11.1980, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. By the said order, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 4 and 5 holding the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to be co- tenure holders of khata No. 5 also having half share in the said khata also. 7. Aggrieved from the order dated 22.11.1980, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria which was numbered as Revision No. 833 and dismissed by him by his order dated 23.01.1984, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. 8. 7. Aggrieved from the order dated 22.11.1980, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria which was numbered as Revision No. 833 and dismissed by him by his order dated 23.01.1984, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the Consolidation authorities that the respondent No. 3 and Smt. Shyamraji mother of the respondent No. 4 were the daughters of late Ram Charan and that Ram Charan had not predeceased his brother Kawal and the share of late Ram Charan in the disputed holdings after his death devolved upon his daughters are vitiated on account of being based upon legally inadmissible evidence and in disregard of the material evidence on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the death certificate of late Ram Charan dated 19.9.1959 was filed before the revisional authority, respondent No. 1 from which it was apparent that Ram Charan had predeceased Kawal as a result there of his interest in the disputed holdings after his death devolved upon his brother Kawal but the respondent No. 1 illegally observed in the impugned order that the said death certificate did not inspire confidence and could not be relied upon for the purpose of accepting the petitioners’ contention also. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that there was no material on record indicating that khata No. 5 was ever ancestral joint property of the parties and the consolidation officer had rightly rejected the claim of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect thereof but the Settlement Officer Consolidation officer in appeal illegally accepted the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they were co-tenure holders of khata No. 5 also and the failure of the revisional authority to redeem the said illegality committed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has totally vitiated the order of the respondent No. 1. also. 11. Sri R. C. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they were co-tenure holders of khata No. 5 also and the failure of the revisional authority to redeem the said illegality committed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has totally vitiated the order of the respondent No. 1. also. 11. Sri R. C. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities that the disputed holdings are the ancestral joint family property of the party and that Ram Charan the father of the respondent No. 3 and the maternal grand father of the respondent No. 4 had not predeceased Kawal are findings of facts based upon relevant considerations and cogent evidence and are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had filed an objection under Section 9 A (2) of the Act claiming co-tenancy in rights in the disputed holdings. The basic year entry in respect of khata No. 153 was in favour of the petitioners and late Ram Charan the predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 whereas the petitioners alone were recorded in the basic year in respect of khata No. 5. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claimed co-tenancy right on the ground that the disputed holdings were ancestral joint family property descending from Tejman the common ancestor. Tejman had two sons Ram Charan and Kamal. Ram Charan has two daughters Smt. Dhanraji and Smt. Shaymraji, the mother of the respondent No. 5 while Kamal had four sons Brijraj Deepraj Abhiraj and Khudi who had one son Chauthi petitioner No. 2. According to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, they were entitled to half share in the disputed holdings and be declared as co-tenure holders thereof alongwith the petitioners. 13. The claim of the respondent Nos. According to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, they were entitled to half share in the disputed holdings and be declared as co-tenure holders thereof alongwith the petitioners. 13. The claim of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was contested by the petitioners who filed their objections inter alia claiming that neither the respondent No. 4 nor Smt. Shyamraji were the daughters of Ram Charan who had predeceased his brother Kawal and upon his death his share in the disputed holdings devolved upon Kawal and thus even if it is assumed that respondent No. 4 and Smt. Shyamraji were the daughters of Ram Charan they would not be entitled to any share in the disputed holdings. 14. The consolidation officer after considering the entire evidence on record allowed the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of khata No. 153 while rejected their claim with regard to khata No. 5 by his order dated 5.3.1980. Two appeals were preferred by the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the order of the consolidation officer. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation whereas appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was allowed by his order dated 22.11.1980 whereby the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were held to be co-tenure holders alongwith the petitioners of khata No. 5 which was also found by the S.O.C. to be the ancestral joint family property of the parties and the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in respect of khata No. 153 was maintained by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 15. The revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed by him by his order dated 23.1.1984. 16. 15. The revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed by him by his order dated 23.1.1984. 16. After going through the impugned orders and examining the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that there is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has failed to demonstrate that the findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Authorities that the disputed holdings belonged to the common ancestor Tejman, and were joint ancestral property of the parties that the Respondent No. 4 and Smt. Shyamraji mother of the respondent No. 5 were daughters of Ram Charan and that late Ram Charan did not predecease his brother Kawal the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity. The respondent No. 1, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the death certificate of Ram Charan filed by the petitioners at the revisional stage after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record and the statement of record keeper. 17. The reasons given by the respondent No. 1 for not relying upon the death certificate of Ram Charan can not be faulted with. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————