JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.10.1967 passed in Case No. 6769 (Hanuman v. Baijnath) by the Consolidation Officer, Chunar, District Mirzapur as also the order dated 29.6.1968 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal No. 1977 (Panna and others v. Hanuman and others) and Appeal No. 2022 (Panna and others v. Smt. Majni) as also the orders dated 27.4.1970 and 12.5.1977 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in Revision No. 2612 of 1976 and Revision No. 2716 of 1976 (Hanuman v. Smt. Majni). 2. Heard Sri A.K.Singh and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsels for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri M.Sharwar Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. 3. The petitioner No. 1 as also the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had died during the pendency of this writ petition and have been substituted by the heirs and legal representatives. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the dispute in this writ petition relates to Khata No. 45 comprising of 16 plots having total area of 7 bigha, 7 biswa and 14 dhoor situate in village Balipurwa, Pargana Kantit, District Mirzapur, U.P.. In the basic year respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 namely Baijnath, Akshayavar and Harihar all the sons of Beni were recorded over the land in dispute. The petitioner No. 1, Hanuman filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming that the land in dispute is ancestral from the time of common ancestor, Panchayan and hence he is co-tenure holder with the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as also respondent Nos. 6 and 7 namely Panna and Mohan both sons of Musau and as such he has half share in the holdings. According to the petitioner, the ancestor of Musau and Beni namely Rajman had admitted the claim of the petitioner in an earlier litigation hence the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could not lay claim over the land in question and to such effect the respondent Nos. According to the petitioner, the ancestor of Musau and Beni namely Rajman had admitted the claim of the petitioner in an earlier litigation hence the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 could not lay claim over the land in question and to such effect the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 compromised the matter on 14.10.1965 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, whereby they admitted the claim of the petitioner No. 1, Hanuman. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner No. 2, Majni who claimed to be daughter of Moti and Nanki claimed that she was also a co-tenure holder alongwith Baijnath, Akshaywar and Harihar since after the death of her father Moti her mother Nanki was recorded and after the death of her mother Nanki in 1959, the petitioner No. 2 was entitled to 1/4th share in the holdings. 6. Learned counsel states that the respondent No. 6, Panna and respondent No. 7, Mohan both sons of Musau also filed objection under Section 9 of the Act taking similar plea of being co-tenure holder with respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The respondent Nos. 3 to 7 inter se admitted each others claims but they contested the claim of the petitioners. 7. The Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the petitioner No. 1 as also of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 but in appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation allowed the appeals of the respondents and the claim of the petitioner No. 1 was rejected. The Deputy Director, Consolidation in the revision filed by the petitioner No. 1 allowed the revision. 8. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner No. 2 and on her appeal, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dismissed her appeal whereagainst she filed revision and the Deputy Director, Consolidation allowed her revision. 9. Against the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation relating to the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 filed a Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1970 (Baijnath and others v. Deputy Director, Consolidation and others) and the High Court vide order dated 31.10.1974 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Deputy Director, Consolidation to reconsider the revisions afresh. Upon remand the Deputy Director, Consolidation has dismissed both the revisions by the order dated 12.5.1977. 10. Upon remand the Deputy Director, Consolidation has dismissed both the revisions by the order dated 12.5.1977. 10. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation are illegal when they have rejected the claim of the petitioner No. 1 for the reason that the record of Khatauni from 1289 F and 1329 F it was clearly established that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of common ancestor Panchayan and since there was no evidence of any resettlement by Panchayan in favour of his sons it was a holding whose identity would be continuing from the time of common ancestor and would devolve on the parties in accordance with their shares. It is submitted that there was no proof of self acquisition of the land in question by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and hence their name was recorded in representative capacity and the Deputy Director, Consolidation has erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner. It is further submitted that any argument made by counsel for the parties before the Consolidation Authorities admitting a question of fact would not be binding on the parties, if such admission is against the established facts and documents in the case and hence the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Deputy Director, Consolidation could not record a finding on such admission of counsel to the effect that there was no continuity in identity of the land from the time of common ancestor. 11. It has also been argued that the suit for division of tenancies filed under Section 37 of the Agra Tenancy Act (U.P. Act No. 3 of 1926) by one Jhuru who claimed to be grand-son of Panchayan was contested by the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 jointly wherein they have filed written statement dated 30.8.1937 jointly and hence the admission of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 relating to the petitioner’s share was apparent there from and the Deputy Director, Consolidation could not have ignored such joint pleading made by the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 relating to Khatas including the Khata in question against Jhuru. As such in the absence of disproof of the said admission by the respondents, the petitioner was clearly a co-tenure holder with the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 relating to Khatas including the Khata in question against Jhuru. As such in the absence of disproof of the said admission by the respondents, the petitioner was clearly a co-tenure holder with the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and the Deputy Director, Consolidation could not reject the claim of the petitioner. 12. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner No. 1 remained in possession over the land in question which was apparent from khasra entries and rent and revenue receipts. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner while submitting on the claim of the petitioner No. 2 has submitted that the petitioner No. 2 was entered in the Kutumb Register as daughter of Moti and Nanki whereas in the impugned order dated 12.5.1977, the Deputy Director, Consolidation has ignored the same by applying the provisions of Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to discard the claim of the petitioner No. 2. He submits that the petitioner No. 2 inherited her share after the death of her father Moti and after her mother Nanki died in the year 1959. According to him, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation against the petitioner No. 2 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 14. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Lal Ji Singh and others v. Shiva Pujan Singh and others, 1982 ALJ 198, to submit that where an order has been passed on the basis of compromise and it is set aside but the genuineness of the compromise has not been doubted nor it has been held to be invalid or fraudulently obtained, then the compromise would continue to have legal force and can be referred to in the same proceedings or also in other proceeding to show that the terms contained therein which were agreed by the parties would bind them. 15. 15. He has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Thakur Din and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others, 1983 ALJ 1382, to submit that even though an order passed on the basis of compromise is set aside in appeal on technical ground the terms of the compromise would be still valid and binding and further that an admission made is a substantive piece of evidence and it also binds others contesting on common ground. 16. Learned counsel has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Manohar Misra v. Chancellor Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, 2011 ADJ 487 and placed reliance on paragraph 5 therein to state that a review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise and hence in the present case when the matter was remanded from the High Court, the Deputy Director, Consolidation could not have reversed the findings of fact recorded by him in the earlier order. 17. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Banarasi Das, Kundanlal v. Kanshi Ram, Munna Lal, AIR 1963 SC 1165 and states that admission made by a party on a question of fact binds him but it cannot bind him if the admission relates to a question of law. 18. Learned counsel has also referred to the second supplementary affidavit filed by him to state that in a Suit No. 419 of 2007 (Harihar v. Panna and others) filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Mirzapur, Panna respondent No. 6 herein had filed written statement on 30.9.2008 and had given therein a pedigree of the parties where he had clearly admitted that the petitioner No. 2, Majni is daughter of Moti. He also states that Khataunis from 1289 F onwards relating to Khata No. 54 indicates clearly that the father of Moti was Rajman and the father of the petitioner No. 2 Hanuman was Padarath. He submits that when the petitioner No. 1 was son of Padarath and Padarath was son of Panchayan, the petitioner No. 1 clearly inherited the share of Padarath in the land in question. He submits that when the petitioner No. 1 was son of Padarath and Padarath was son of Panchayan, the petitioner No. 1 clearly inherited the share of Padarath in the land in question. He also states that it was admitted that the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Majni was daughter of Moti and Moti was son of Rajman and Rajman was son of Panchayan hence the petitioner No. 2 also had share in the property in question. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly referred to the revenue records copies of which he has brought on record of this writ petition alongwith supplementary affidavit to assail the findings recorded in the impugned orders. 20. Sri M.Shahanshah Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 while referring to his counter-affidavit states that the respondents are in possession over the land in question and that the petitioner No. 2 was not daughter of Moti hence petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any share in the land in question. However, it has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner No. 1 has agricultural land in his name which is not disputed in this writ petition. 21. Relying on yet another counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and that of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are common and all of them have disputed the claim made by both the petitioners. In effect he states that concurrent findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director, Consolidation do not require any interference in this writ petition. 22. The petitioner has disputed the averments made in the counter-affidavit and has in the rejoinder-affidavit reiterated the averment made in the writ petition and states that 1359 F is the date of vesting under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and 1372 F is the basic year for the purpose of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 23. From the above submission of learned counsels, it appears that earlier the Deputy Director, Consolidation had decided the revision of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 on 27.4.1970 against which Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1970 was filed by the respondent Nos. 23. From the above submission of learned counsels, it appears that earlier the Deputy Director, Consolidation had decided the revision of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 on 27.4.1970 against which Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1970 was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and that writ petition was allowed on 31.10.1974 remanding the issue for a fresh decision by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The said judgement dated 31.10.1974 has been brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit dated 8.9.2006. In this Writ Court’s order dated 31.10.1974 the pedigree of the of the parties was shown as reproduced under : 24. While considering the plea of Majni (petitioner No. 2 herein) the Writ Court held that the Deputy Director, Consolidation had erroneously granted her share in the property on the ground that her mother Nanki was a co-tenant with sons of Beni and Musroo (respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein). The Writ Court held that this was not the case set up by Majni but she had claimed to have become a co-tenant with the petitioners (respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein) as of her own right. The Writ Court found that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation had held that Majni had failed to prove her claim hence the observation of the Deputy Director, Consolidation that Nanki died after abolition of Zamindari and her interest would devolve on her daughter Majni was wholly unwarranted since if Moti husband of Nanki died before the date of vesting then devolution would be governed by the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and not by the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, therefore, Nanki would succeed Moti only with life interest. After the death of Nanki her life interest would not devolve on her heir but it would devolve on the heirs of Moti. The Writ Court recorded that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation had both recorded a concurrent finding of fact that Majni was not daughter of Moti and the Deputy Director, Consolidation had reversed the findings without considering the circumstances and materials which had weighed with the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation relating to Majni was therefore, set aside. 25. The order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation relating to Majni was therefore, set aside. 25. The Writ Court in the order dated 31.10.1974 considered the claim of Hanuman (petitioner No. 1 herein) and held that Hanuman has to prove two things- firstly that the plots in question were acquisition of Panchayan the common ancestor and secondly that the identity of the holding remained intact. It found that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had held that the land did not come down in identical form but the Deputy Director, Consolidation accepted the claim of Hanuman (petitioner No. 1 herein) on the basis of admission of Rajwman and Hanuman in Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 and also on the conciliation before Assistant Consolidation Officer by the parties. The Writ Court rejected the objections raised there against and held that Rajman had not signed the joint written statement in that suit on the ground that if the petitioners therein (respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein) wanted to prove such fact they should have filed the correct certified copy of the written statement since the certified copy filed by them was not on record of the suit. It was recorded that the admission of Rajman was confined to Khata No. 46 and not to Khata No. 45. Therefore, when there was no evidence to show that Hanuman was in possession of Khata No. 45 before institution of suit in 1937 and thereafter then the Deputy Director, Consolidation has erroneously accepted that the admission of Rajman in the earlier suit was with regard to Khata No. 45 as well. 26. Another aspect considered by the Writ Court was that the conciliation before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was never challenged by the petitioners (respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein). It was held that the order based on conciliation was set aside at the instance of another person hence it has no existence and cannot be relied upon. On the issue that the land has not come down in identical form the writ Court held that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has observed in his order that Hanuman had admitted this fact but the Deputy Director, Consolidation has accepted the claim of Hanuman only on the basis of an admission of Rajman and Hanuman in Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 which was confined to Khata No. 46 and not to Khata No. 45. The Writ Court further held that in case the admission of Rajman was regarding Khata No. 45 then there was no reason for Hanuman to keep silent for about 30 years after admission in that suit and taking no steps to get it entered in the revenue records. The writ Court found that the Deputy Director, Consolidation had not taken into account the said findings of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the reasons given for recording such findings by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation was therefore, set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision of the revision No. 2612 (Hanuman v. Baijnath and others) and Revision No. 2716 (Majni v. Baijnath and others). 27. On remand the Deputy Director, Consolidation considered the case set up by the parties and recited that in the basic year Baijnath and Achhaibar were recorded in the revenue record over Khata No. 45 having sixteen plots total area of 7 Bigha 7 biswa and 14 dhurs. Hanuman filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming half share in the land. Panna (respondent No. 6 herein) and Mohan (respondent No. 7 herein) also filed objection claiming one fourth share in the land. Majani (petitioner No. 2 herein) filed objection claiming one fourth share in the land. 28. The Deputy Director, Consolidation while dealing with the Revision No. 2716 (Majni v. Baijnath and others) considered the evidence lead by Majni in support of her plea that she was daughter of Moti and Nanki. He has discussed the oral statement of Majni and has found that she stated that she was 32 years old but when she was cross-examined she told her age as 20 years. The Kutumbh register and Birth Register produced by her indicated that Moti had a son and not a daughter. In the Khasra of 1359 F (date of vesting) the name of Moti is recorded who she claimed had died 12 years before she gave the statement but the Deputy Director, Consolidation recorded that although Nanki died in 1959 yet Majni never got her name recorded till start of consolidation proceedings in 1965. He also recorded that Majni did not know anything about the land and she stated in the oral statement that her mother had told her about the land when she was 8 or 9 years old. 29. He also recorded that Majni did not know anything about the land and she stated in the oral statement that her mother had told her about the land when she was 8 or 9 years old. 29. The Deputy Director, Consolidation took in account the two witnesses produced by Majni namely Mahagi and Nakka. On a perusal of the oral statement of Mahagi the Deputy Director, Consolidation has held that Mahagi in reply to the questions put to him could not reply and showed ignorance about the land and the family and only stated that Hanuman is his brother-in-law. He did not even know how many children Hanuman had from his wife whom Mahagi claimed was his sister. The second witness Nakka admitted in his oral statement that there were criminal cases between him and Hanuman and Achhibar and that he had appeared as a witness in support of Hanuman and Majni hence the Deputy Director, Consolidation has recorded that enemity between this witness and Baijnath and others is apparent. He was held to be not an independent witness. 30. On the entire evidence the Deputy Director has recorded a finding that : 1. Moti died prior to the vesting date under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. Moti had no daughter hence Majni was not his daughter. 3. Even if it is presumed that Majni is daughter of Moti and Nanki even then since Moti died prior to the date of vesting the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 will apply to the holding. 4. Under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 after death of Moti his wife would have life interest but after the death of his wife Nanki in 1959 the rights would go to the heirs of Moti under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 who would be male lineal descendants in the male line of descent. 5. Majni was never in possession of the land nor her name was ever entered in the revenue records nor she paid any rent or revenue. He has therefore, dismissed the Revision No. 2716 of Majni. 31. The Deputy Director, Consolidation then took up the Revision No. 2612 of Hanuman. The question decided by him was as to whether the land was ancestral property of Hanuman and whether there was continuity in identity of the land from the time of his ancestors. He has therefore, dismissed the Revision No. 2716 of Majni. 31. The Deputy Director, Consolidation then took up the Revision No. 2612 of Hanuman. The question decided by him was as to whether the land was ancestral property of Hanuman and whether there was continuity in identity of the land from the time of his ancestors. Hanuman’s main thrust was on the admission made in the joint written statement filed in Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 decided on 30.9.1937. The Deputy Director, Consolidation found that there was no thumb impression or signature of Rajman on the written statement but there are two thumb impressions of Hanuman alone. No evidence was filed by the petitioner Hanuman to show that the written statement was also signed by Rajman. Hence he rejected the plea of Hanuman regarding any admission made by Rajman in that suit of 1937. He also recorded that the suit of 1937 did not relate to Khata No. 45 and even if presumed that it related to the Khata then the fact that Hanuman did not act upon the judgement and decree of the 1937 suit for more than 30 years and never got his name recorded shows that there was no such admission made by Rajman nor the suit related to Khata No. 45. The irrigation slips and revenue receipts produced by Hanuman did not prove that he was entered in the revenue records over the Khata No. 45. 32. On the issue of continuity in identity of the land the Deputy Director, Consolidation has affirmed the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and has held that except for the revenue record of 1289 F and 1329 F no other evidence has been filed to prove this issue. He found that the Revisionist had failed to prove the issue and that there was no continuity in the identity of the land. On the conciliation held before the Assistant Consolidation Officer the Deputy Director, Consolidation has recorded that the order so passed has already been set aside and the revision filed by Hanuman there against has already been dismissed hence no benefit can be obtained by Hanuman on that score. The Revision No. 2612 of Hanuman has therefore, been dismissed by the impugned order. 33. The Revision No. 2612 of Hanuman has therefore, been dismissed by the impugned order. 33. The issue raised in this writ petition and being taken up for consideration is firstly relating to the alleged admission of Rajman the father of Moti in Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 (under the U.P. Act No. 3 of 1926) where it was alleged that he filed a joint written statement with Hanuman and accepted his share in the property. Hanuman is nephew of Rajman since it is shown in the pedigree that he is son of Padarath who is brother of Rajman. The Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that Rajman did not sign the joint written statement with Hanuman. There was no evidence whatsoever led by Hanuman to establish that the joint written statement was also signed by Rajman. This finding of fact has been recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation since the pleadings to such effect taken by Hanuman were never proved by any evidence. Therefore, when Rajman did not sign the joint written statement in Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 which was filed for division of tenancies it cannot be held that Rajman admitted the share of Hanuman. Since this is a finding of fact recorded by the Court below hence this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its own finding particularly when no evidence was filed by Hanuman in support of this plea taken by him. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence on the plea and Hanuman has failed to prove it. 34. The second issue raised is that there was a conciliation between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation, Officer on 14.10.1965 when these consolidation proceedings started. The record indicates that the order passed on the basis of conciliation was set aside in appeal of another person. The Writ Court in its order dated 31.10.1974 has clearly held that when the order was set aside then it does not exist hence cannot be relied upon. This order passed in appeal was challenged by Hanuman in a revision and his revision was dismissed. Such facts are recorded in the Writ Courts order dated 31.10.1974 hence now it has attained finality and no benefit can be derived by Hanuman from such conciliation. 35. This order passed in appeal was challenged by Hanuman in a revision and his revision was dismissed. Such facts are recorded in the Writ Courts order dated 31.10.1974 hence now it has attained finality and no benefit can be derived by Hanuman from such conciliation. 35. The decision in the case of Lalji Singh (supra) and Thakur Din (supra) would not help Hanuman for the reason that the order passed in appeal whereby the conciliation order was set aside was filed by Panna (respondent No. 6 herein) and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has clearly held that it cannot be an admission as conciliation may be entered into by the parties on other considerations also. The Deputy Director, Consolidation in revision has affirmed the reasons given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and they being concurrent findings cannot be interfered with when it is abundantly clear that it was the respondent No. 6 Panna who was not signatory to the conciliation had got it set a side. 36. The third issue raised in this writ petition is as to the continuity in the identity of the land. Before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation there was an admission made on behalf of Hanuman that the land has not come down in identical form. It has been argued that an admission made by a counsel on a question of fact cannot bind the litigant. True it is but when no such issue is framed nor any evidence is led by the parties then the continuity in the identity of the land was not proved. Even before the Consolidation Officer no such plea was raised nor any such issue was framed. In the absence of an assertion there can be no denial. Hence only if there is an assertion and a denial to such assertion can an issue be framed. It is only when an issue is framed that the parties can lead evidence. In the present case no such plea was taken before the Consolidation Officer. No such issue was framed. It was before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that this point was raised but it was admitted on behalf of Hanuman that there was no continuity in the identity of the land. After this admission there was no occasion for the respondents to lead any evidence. No such issue was framed. It was before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that this point was raised but it was admitted on behalf of Hanuman that there was no continuity in the identity of the land. After this admission there was no occasion for the respondents to lead any evidence. Therefore, now in this writ petition the Court cannot adjudicate such non-existent issue nor can this Court send the matter back for framing the issue. There is no evidence even in this writ petition to show that there was continuity in the identity of the land hence also no reason can be assigned to justify an order of remand. The facts in the case of Banarsi Das (supra) were quite different hence cannot be applied here. 37. Apart from the above it is the own case of Hanuman that a Suit No. 1/28 of 1937 for division of tenancies was decreed on 30.9.1937. It related to Khata No. 46 only. Khata No. 45 was never recorded in the name of the petitioners hence they cannot claim share for the reason that the identity of the plot did not change. Clearly after the common ancestor the plots identity continued with Moti, Beni and the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and not in the name of Padarath, Hanuman or Majni. 38. The fourth issue raised in this writ petition relates to the petitioner No. 2 Majni as to whether she was daughter of Moti. It is on record that Moti died prior to abolition of Zamindari. Therefore, his succession will be under the U.P. Tenancy Act and not under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Under the U.P. Tenancy Act the wife of Moti namely Nanki will have life interest after Moti’s death. After Nanki died in 1959 her heirs would not succeed to the property. It will be Moti’s heirs (male lineal descendants in the male line of descent) who will succeed him under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The Courts below have held that Majni was not daughter of Moti. This finding has been recorded for the reason that the Birth Register produced indicated that Moti had a son and not a daughter. This register was produced by none other than Majni herself. The Courts below have held that Majni was not daughter of Moti. This finding has been recorded for the reason that the Birth Register produced indicated that Moti had a son and not a daughter. This register was produced by none other than Majni herself. Even the witness namely Mahagi and Nakka could not shed any light on this fact and in effect their oral statement was no proof of anything regarding the land or the family. Mahagi did not answer any questions put to him and he did not know how many children Hanuman had although he claimed that Hanuman’s wife was his sister. Nakka was declared as not an independent witness since he had supported Hanuman and Majni in criminal proceedings against Baijnath, Achhaibar and others. Majni in her own oral statement showed ignorance about the land and only stated that her mother had told her when she was 8-9 years old. On this evidence Majni was held to be not entitled to share in the property as also in view of Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The aforesaid reasoning, finding and conclusion in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act of the Deputy Director, Consolidation cannot be faulted and such is a concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. 39. The fifth and last issue raised in this writ petition is that prior to remand order dated 31.10.1974 of the Writ Court the Deputy Director, Consolidation had allowed the revision of the petitioners on 27.4.1970 and had recorded certain findings of facts in favour of the petitioners hence after remand by the Writ Court he could not reverse those findings since it would amount to a review. Reliance has been placed in the case of Ram Manohar Misra (supra). This argument appears to be misconceived. The earlier order dated 27.4.1970 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation was challenged in Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1970 by the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein. That writ petition was allowed on 31.10.1974 and the order dated 27.4.1970 of the Deputy Director, Consolidation was set aside. Clearly the Writ Court set aside the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation when it found that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation were given without considering the reasons given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. That writ petition was allowed on 31.10.1974 and the order dated 27.4.1970 of the Deputy Director, Consolidation was set aside. Clearly the Writ Court set aside the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation when it found that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation were given without considering the reasons given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation were based on material whereas the Deputy Director, Consolidation had not considered that material nor he had met the reasoning given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Once the order dated 27.4.1970 of the Deputy Director, Consolidation was set aside by the Writ Court on 31.10.1974 all the findings and reasoning given by him also stood quashed. Therefore, to say that the impugned order dated 12.5.1977 was a review of the order dated 27.4.1970 would be incorrect. There is no merit in this submission of the petitioners and it is rejected. 40. On the question of possession the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners are not in possession. In fact it has been held that they were not in possession either prior to 1937 nor thereafter. In this writ petition some irrigation slips have been filed. These irrigation slips are not absolute proof of possession. The petitioners have not proved their possession over the land in question. 41. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is required in the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. 42. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 43. A conditional interim order was passed in this writ petition on 9.8.1977 which reads as quoted hereunder : “Heard counsel for the parties. Till further order of this Court, petitioner No. 2 shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute in case he has not already been dispossessed.” 44. The interim order dated 9.8.1977 is vacated. 45. The writ petition is dismissed. 46. Cost on parties. ——————