Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. All substitution applications are allowed. Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation have decided the matter against the petitioner. The last order has been passed by D.D.C., Azamgarh in Revision No.1319, Lalta Vs. Sant Kuber and others on 30.10.1971. S.O.C. had passed the order on 19.04.1971, which was challenged in the said revision. Petitioner claimed co-tenureship along with contesting respondents on the ground that over the land in dispute in 1356 Fasli, 1362 Fasli and 1374 Fasli, petitioner's name was there in the revenue records. The learned D.D.C. held that in 1307 Fasli Revenue Record, petitioner's name or names of his ancestors was not there when settlement had taken place; similarly, in the settlement of 1348 Fasli also his or his ancestors name was not there in the revenue records. The D.D.C. further held that it could not be explained by the petitioner as to how suddenly his name was entered in the revenue record for the first time in 1356 Fasli. The main argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that on the basis of similar entries petitioner's claim had been accepted in respect of land of other khatas as stated in para-7 of the writ petition, which is quoted below: "7. That it is noteworthy that the petitioner's claim has been accepted by the consolidation authorities in respect of different khatas only on the basis of the entries of 1356 Fasli onward and that judgment has become final between the parties." Neither the orders of consolidation authorities/courts in respect of different khatas have been annexed nor numbers of the cases or dates of there decisions have been mentioned. Accordingly, on such vague allegation, the argument cannot be accepted. No foundation for the aforesaid argument has been laid. I therefore do not find any error in the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.