JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It relates to claims over Khata No. 27 and Khata No. 194 situate in village Vishunpur Kala, Pargana Mahaich, Tehsil Chandauli, District Varanasi and its partition. It is directed against the orders dated 15.4.1975 in Case No. 6 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Sakaldiha, the order dated 2.8.1975 in Appeal No. 166/561 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Varanasi West and the order dated 4.8.1976 in Revisions No. 606/1268 and 608/1272 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Varanasi. 2. The dispute is whether Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) was fraudulently and erroneously recorded over the khatas in question in the revenue record in the basic year alongwith the petitioners Telhu and Meghu. To such effect the Consolidation Officer framed an issue and the parties led their evidence. 3. The petitioner Telhu and Meghu gave their oral statement that the property came down from Rupa who had two sons Janki and Tulsi and Petitioner No. 1, Telhu was son of Janki and Meghu was son of Tulsi. According to them the Respondent No. 4 Rupwanti was not the wife of Tulsi hence she has no claim over the share of Tulsi. 4. The Respondent No. 4 Rupwanti gave the pedigree of Rupa and stated that he had two sons Janki and Tulsi. According to her Janki had two sons Telhu (Petitioner No. 1) and Meghu (Petitioner No. 2). She claimed to be wife of Tulsi and she was also known as Basanti. 5. Documentary evidence in the form of khatauni’s was filed by the parties. The Consolidation Officer went through the khatauni’s and recorded as under : 6. On the above oral and documentary evidence the Consolidation Officer held that Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) is the widow of Tulsi and Telhu (Petitioner No. 1) and Meghu (Petitioner No. 2) are sons of Janki hence the name of Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) has rightly been recorded in the revenue records. He held that in Khata No. 27 and Khata No. 194 Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) had half share and Telhu had one fourth share and Maghu had one fourth share. The objections filed by Bhutani wife of Telhu, Meghu and Telhu were rejected. 7. He held that in Khata No. 27 and Khata No. 194 Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4) had half share and Telhu had one fourth share and Maghu had one fourth share. The objections filed by Bhutani wife of Telhu, Meghu and Telhu were rejected. 7. The Petitioner No. 2, Meghu filed Appeal No. 166/561 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has found that the objectors had not filed any kutumbh register, birth register, voters list or any panchayat documents to prove that Meghu is any where recorded as son of Tulsi. He has held that in khatauni of 1349F relating to Khata Nos. 16 and 59 Janki was recorded alongwith Tulsi and since Tulsi was alive and was issueless hence Meghu got his name entered as son of Tulsi. He found that the khatauni’s of 1348F, 1349F 1356F recorded Telhu son of Janki and Meghu son of Tulsi but these khata’s were not subject-matter of the proceedings however in Khata No. 128 in 1356F Janki is recorded as son of Rupa and Basanti is recorded as widow of Tulsi since admittedly Tulsi died on 21.5.1947. 8. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that the compromise entered into between Telhu and Meghu on the basis of a sale-deed dated 25.5.1949 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 24.11.1970 recording the name of Telhu and Meghu sons of Janki was an evidence that they were both sons of Janki and although it was alleged that there was dispute to the succession of Janki hence if Meghu was son of Tulsi then there should have been an objection by Telhu and no compromise would have been entered between them regarding succession to Janki. He has therefore held that the said order could not in any manner adversely affect the rights of Rupwanti (Respondent No. 4). The Settlement Officer Consolidation has also recorded that the oral evidence given by witness of Meghu namely Jhakari indicated that when Janki was 30-40 years old at that time Meghu was 18-20 years old and two sons were born to Janki whose names were Meghu and Telhu. 9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has therefore confirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. Feeling aggrieved both the petitioners i.e. Telhu and Meghu filed two Revisions No. 608/1268 (Meghu v. Rupwanti and others) and Revision No. 606/1268 (Telhu v. Rupwanti and others) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. 10. 9. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has therefore confirmed the order of the Consolidation Officer. Feeling aggrieved both the petitioners i.e. Telhu and Meghu filed two Revisions No. 608/1268 (Meghu v. Rupwanti and others) and Revision No. 606/1268 (Telhu v. Rupwanti and others) before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that the witness of Meghu namely Jhakari has in his statement stated that Rupwanti is also known as Basanti hence in the khatauni of 1366-69F it has been recorded that Rupwanti is widow of Tulsi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has reasoned that Telhu and Meghu have nowhere stated as to whose widow is Rupwanti if she is not the widow of Tulsi. He therefore held that the Courts below have not committed any error when they have held that Rupwanti is widow of Tulsi. 11. The second issue considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was whether Meghu is son of Tulsi or son of Janki. He took into account the revenue entries of the past and the patta istamarari as also the oral statement made by Bhutani and Shyama Pradhan who had stated that Telhu and Meghu are sons of Janki. Bhutani was the wife of Telhu. These statements were recorded in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act in the year 1970 relating to village Dedhgava. He recorded that in the Birth Register an entry was existing that a son was born to Tulsi on 11.4.1930. While perusing the patta istamarari dated 23.5.1949 he found that both Telhu and Meghu were shown as sons of Janki hence the entry of 1934 where Meghu was shown as son of Tulsi was an entry when Meghu was a minor. After becoming major in 1949 he was recorded as son of Janki in the patta istamarari and after the death of Tulsi the name of Meghu was not recorded in his place but the widow of Tulsi was recorded in the revenue record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further held that the compromise entered into between Telhu and Meghu at the appellate stage in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act is not binding on the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti since it was an after thought to claim that Meghu was son of Tulsi and not Janki. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further held that the compromise entered into between Telhu and Meghu at the appellate stage in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act is not binding on the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti since it was an after thought to claim that Meghu was son of Tulsi and not Janki. On the aforesaid evidence the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Meghu is son of Janki and not the son of Tulsi. Both the Revisions were therefore dismissed. 12. Sri Triveni Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued mainly on the basis of the evidence on record and his submission is that all the three Consolidation Authorities have recorded their findings against the evidence. Even in his written submissions the same pleas have been taken which are that the evidence was not properly appreciated by all the three Consolidation Courts. 13. His further argument is that when the entry in the revenue record was not made in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Revenue Court Manual then such entries are to be held as forged entries and no benefit can be taken from them. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Neur v. Additional Collector and others, 2012 (6) ADJ 117 . 14. He further relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi, 2012 All CJ 1103, to state that fraud renders the judgment a nullity hence the benefit of such a judgment cannot be available. 15. He has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Lal Krishna Kunwar Pal v. Kedar Nath, 1973 RJ 302, to state that when revenue entries are not made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Record Manual then they are fictitious and carry no value for claiming rights. 16. Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has submitted that categorical findings of fact have been concurrently recorded by all the three Consolidation Courts hence this Court in its writ jurisdiction would not interfere in such finding of fact. He states that no question of law is involved in this writ petition warranting any interference in the impugned orders. He states that no question of law is involved in this writ petition warranting any interference in the impugned orders. In his written submission he has stated that the evidence weighed by the Consolidation Courts clearly lead to a finding that Telhu and Meghu are both sons of Janki and Rupwanti is wife of Tulsi. According to him the share in land in question is 1/2 for Rupwanti and 1/4 each for Telhu and Meghu. 17. From the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as also the Respondent No. 4 it appears that in this writ petition the finding of fact recorded by the Consolidation Authorities has been assailed. 18. During the proceedings it appears that certain transfers by sale and will or otherwise have been effected by the parties and therefore impleadment application was filed. Such persons seeking impleadment as petitioners and respondents has been allowed on 4.12.1979 whereas the deceased petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been substituted and Respondent No. 4 has been directed to be substituted by her heirs and legal representatives who are the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 impleaded on 4.12.1979. The substituted heir of Petitioner No. 2 also died and has been substituted by Petitioner No. 2/1. 19. At the outset the main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that forged revenue entries cannot be made the basis of a claim to property. For the said submission it has to be pleaded that the entries were forged and upon such a pleading evidence has to be lead to prove forgery. In the present case the revenue entries are alleged to be forged. The revenue entries relate from the year 1348F to 1374F. The basic year entry has given rise to the dispute in these proceedings. Therefore in case it is found that the basic year entry was forged then the claim of the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti would have to be considered in that light. 20. The basic year entry in the khatauni indicates that the petitioners Telhu and Meghu are recorded as sons of Janki and the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti is recorded as widow of Tulsi. When Janki and Tulsi were two sons of Rupa then they were entitled to 1/2 share each. 20. The basic year entry in the khatauni indicates that the petitioners Telhu and Meghu are recorded as sons of Janki and the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti is recorded as widow of Tulsi. When Janki and Tulsi were two sons of Rupa then they were entitled to 1/2 share each. Under the basic year revenue entry the petitioners would get the 1/2 share of Janki and the Respondent No. 4 would get the 1/2 share of Tulsi. 21. Prior to the basic year revenue entry there was the revenue entry in the khatauni of 1366F to 1369F. In this khatauni the petitioners are shown as sons of Janki and Respondent No. 4 is shown as widow of Tulsi. Therefore this entry also indicates that the petitioners would get the 1/2 share of Janki being his sons and the Respondent No. 4 would get the 1/2 share of Tulsi being his widow. 22. Even prior to 1366F to 1369F in 1356F Janki has been recorded as son of Rupa and Basanti is recorded as widow of Tulsi. From this entry it appears that Janki’s sons i.e. the petitioners Telhu and Meghu were not yet recorded in the revenue record of Khata No. 194 which is subject-matter of these proceedings. 23. In this very khatauni of 1356F it is Basanti who has been described as widow of Tulsi and not Rupwanti. This aspect was considered by the Consolidation Authorities and the evidence of the witness Jhakari was perused. This witness had stated that Rupwanti was also known as Basanti. Another reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that if it was the case of the petitioners that Rupwanti was not Basanti also then they should have stated as to whose widow was Rupwanti. On these two reasons the Courts below have held that Rupwanti was also known as Basanti. 24. In this very khatauni of 1356F with relation to another khata No. 128 araji No. 715 the petitioner Telhu is recorded as son of Janki and petitioner Meghu is recorded as son of Tulsi. Therefore the petitioners are recorded as sons of Janki and Tulsi respectively in another khata and in the khata in dispute Janki is recorded alongwith Basanti @ Rupwanti. Therefore the petitioners are recorded as sons of Janki and Tulsi respectively in another khata and in the khata in dispute Janki is recorded alongwith Basanti @ Rupwanti. This entry also indicates that Janki had 1/2 share and Basanti @Rupwanti had 1/2 share since Tulsi had admittedly died on 21.5.1947 and the Respondent No. 4 was his widow. 25. Prior to 1356F the khatauni’s of 1348F and 1349F were also taken into account by the Courts below. In these khataunis the name of the two petitioners is recorded in column 9 and Telhu is recorded as son of Janki and Meghu is recorded as son of Tulsi. These revenue entries in the khatauni indicate that both the petitioners are not the two sons Janki but these entries are relating to some other plots and not the plots in dispute. 26. The Courts below have recorded that in 1348F Meghu was a minor and Tulsi had died in 1947. It was Janki and Rupwanti @ Basanti widow of Tulsi who were alive. Since Meghu was a minor Janki his father got the name of Meghu recorded as son of Tulsi. But when it was fond that in all subsequent entries after Meghu became major he was shown as son of Janki the Courts below have explained this solitary entry and have held that Meghu was son of Janki and not son of Tulsi. 27. These findings of fact have been assailed for the reason that any correction in the revenue record has to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed and if the corrections are not in accordance thereof then they are forged entries. Insofar as this submission is concerned there can be no dispute regarding the law that any correction in the revenue record has to be made only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 28. In the case of Neur (supra) the facts were that for the first time an entry in the khasra came in 1360F. It was held that when there was no lawful right vested in him prior to 1360F then the entry of 1360F which came for the first time was a suspicious entry hence it was incumbent on him to show whether the entry of 1360F had been recorded in accordance with the prescribed procedure. That is not the circumstance in the present case. Here the property came down from Rupa. That is not the circumstance in the present case. Here the property came down from Rupa. He had two sons Janki and Tulsi. Till this stage of the pedegree the parties are not at dispute. Therefore when the revenue entry is coming down from Rupa the common ancestor then there was no issue of a first time entry since there was a lawful right vested in Janki and Tulsi to inherit from their father Rupa. Clearly the revenue record having the name of Rupa and thereafter of his descendants was not a first time entry so as to label it as a suspicious and fictitious entry. The burden of proof is to be discharged when an entry is suspicious and there was no lawful right vested in the person prior to such suspicious entry. 29. The present case does not indicate any such suspicious circumstance to hold that the revenue entries coming down from common ancestor Rupa were in any manner an entry without any lawful right prior to such entry. Moreover this was a case of Mutation by succession and not one for any other reason like transfer or other. Under such circumstances and facts of the present case no benefit can be derived by the petitioners on the submission that the entries were suspicious and fictitious. The facts in the case of Neur (Supra) were completely different from the facts of the present cases. Therefore the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gandhi (Supra) are not attracted to this case since this is not a case of playing fraud and obtaining a judgment. 30. The decision in the case of Lal Krishna Kunwar Pal (Supra) relates to entry in the khasra and the claim for restoration of possession under Section 232 read with Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The allegation was that the entry in the khasra of 1356F was a fictitious entry. The Court held that an entry in the khasra made under Section 20(b)(1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not contemplate an inquiry whether he was in possession. The entry is record of the name of the person as an occupant. This decision exclusively relates to entries in the khasra which indicate possession. In the present case the khasra of the land in dispute was neither filed nor it was on record. The entry is record of the name of the person as an occupant. This decision exclusively relates to entries in the khasra which indicate possession. In the present case the khasra of the land in dispute was neither filed nor it was on record. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to title on the basis of devolution from the ancestor and whether the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti was entitled to a share. Therefore when there is no dispute relating to khasra entry in this writ petition the decision cited cannot be of any benefit also for the reason that the procedure for making entry in khasra is quite different from that of making an entry in the khatauni. Khasra is an indicator of possession where as khatauni relates to title and nature of occupancy over the land. Moreover the petitioners have led no evidence whatsoever to show that the entries existing in the khatauni since 1356F are fraudulent since all the heirs of Rupa had a lawful right for being recorded after him. 31. The findings of fact recorded by all the three Consolidation Courts are concurrent findings of fact. They are based on appreciation of evidence. From the evidence on record it is wrong to say that the Courts below have not based their decision on evidence. The findings of fact cannot also be held to be perverse in any manner. 32. The evidence shows that prior to the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act both the petitioners were recorded. Telhu was recorded as son of Janki and Meghu was recorded as son of Tulsi. This entry was coming from 1348F. The evidence indicated that these entries were made when Tulsi was alive. Since Tulsi was issueless the name of Meghu (minor) was recorded as son of Tulsi not over the plots in dispute but over other khatas. Clearly if Tulsi was alive in 1348F then there was no occasion to record anyone else’s name. When the khata No. 52 is not in dispute herein and Tulsi was not recorded over the said khata then it appears that since Meghu son of Janki was a minor he was shown as son of Tulsi to indicate that Tulsi had a share in that khata. When the khata No. 52 is not in dispute herein and Tulsi was not recorded over the said khata then it appears that since Meghu son of Janki was a minor he was shown as son of Tulsi to indicate that Tulsi had a share in that khata. However, Tulsi never made any claim over khata No. 52 hence even though Meghu may have been son of Janki his name was got recorded in the khata No. 52 as son of Tulsi. An entry made of a person’s parentage in a khata where the father of the person as shown has no claim cannot be a conclusive proof of the parentage of such recorded person. Therefore the entry in 1348F and 1349F over khata No. 52 (not in dispute herein) was rightly dealt with by all the three Consolidation Courts who did not believe that Meghu was son of Tulsi. There is no error in the finding so recorded. 33. After the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the Petitioner No. 1, Telhu is recorded as son of Janki and Petitioner No. 2, Meghu is also recorded as son of Janki but over other plot. In the khata in dispute the entry is otherwise. Khata No. 194 shows Janki and Basanti wife of Tulsi as the persons recorded. Therefore on such date the khata in dispute is recorded in the name of Janki and Basanti @ Rupwanti. The petitioners are not recorded over the khata No. 194. There after till the basic year both Janki and Rupwanti are recorded over the khata’s in dispute. Here again the petitioner name and parentage finds place over another khata and not khata’s in dispute. 34. Apart from the above khatauni there was a patta istamarari dated 28.4.1949 available on record. This document of 1949 (i.e. prior to the date of vesting) showed that the petitioners Telhu and Meghu are sons of Janki. 35. In another proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act relating to other khata of another village again Telhu and Meghu are shown as sons of Janki in 1970. Therefore when the Courts below have explained the reason for the revenue entry prior to the date of vesting in other khatas not related to the dispute herein then on that basis the petitioners cannot deprive the widow of Tulsi from her share in the disputed khatas. Therefore when the Courts below have explained the reason for the revenue entry prior to the date of vesting in other khatas not related to the dispute herein then on that basis the petitioners cannot deprive the widow of Tulsi from her share in the disputed khatas. In this case Bhutani wife of Telhu had also stated that the petitioners and sons of Janki. 36. Insofar as the plea of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti is not Basanti hence when the name of Basanti was recorded in 1356F then Rupwanti cannot claim any interest is concerned the Consolidation Authority has held that Rupwanti was also known as Basanti. For recording this finding the evidence of the witness Jhakarai was relied upon and it was found that apart from a vague objection the petitioners did not plead or lead any evidence to show as to whose wife or widow was Rupwanti. Therefore the finding recorded by the Courts below that Rupwanti was wife of Tulsi and she was also known as Basanti is based on evidence and the petitioners had failed to prove their objection. No error can be found in this finding of fact. 37. In a writ petition this Court would not interfere in concurrent findings of fact when the said findings are based on a correct appreciation of evidence. This Court finds that there is no case of two views possible from the evidence. Hence also the Writ Court would not substitute its views where even if two views are possible when the view taken by all the three Consolidation Courts are based on a correct appreciation of evidence. The judgments of the Courts below are concluded by findings of fact. No interference is required in them. 38. In view of the concurrent findings of all the three Consolidation Courts and in view of the fact that those findings are based on evidence this Court confirms the said finding of fact. The petitioners have tried to divest the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti of her share in the property. She was a widow. Her husband Tulsi died in 1947. The petitioners knew that she was entitled to inherit the share of her late husband Tulsi. They engaged her in a frivolous litigation which was feebly pleaded by them. The petitioners have tried to divest the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti of her share in the property. She was a widow. Her husband Tulsi died in 1947. The petitioners knew that she was entitled to inherit the share of her late husband Tulsi. They engaged her in a frivolous litigation which was feebly pleaded by them. This fact indicates that a widow of a sharer in the property was sought to be ousted from her entitlement in the property. This litigation has been carried on by the petitioners since prior to 1975. It is now more than 38 years that the petitioners have persisted to dislodge the Respondent No. 4, Rupwanti from her legitimate share although they have failed from all the three Consolidation Courts and now in 2013 from the Writ Court also. Therefore this period of 38 years during which the Respondent No. 4 has had to contest the proceedings was a period of denial of her legitimate rights to the property by the petitioners. 39. Under such circumstances the petitioners tried to dislodge a widow from her legitimate share only on frivolous grounds and have kept her away from the benefit of her property for now more than 38 years. They have to compensate her now by paying costs assessed at Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). 40. The writ petition has no merits hence it is dismissed with costs as provided herein above. —————