Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Mohd. Mustafa Khan, counsel for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002, Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 15.03.2007 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 09.12.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute relates to the land of khata 180 of village Deipaar, tappa Bhanpur, pargana Rasoolpur, tehsil Dumariyaganj, district Siddharthnagar. In basic consolidation record names of Ram Prasad (respondent-5) and Jhinkan (the petitioner) were recorded over the land in dispute. At the time of partal, Jhinkan raised a dispute, claiming 3/4 share in the land in dispute. It is alleged that before the Consolidation Officer Jhinkan and Ram Prasad entered into compromise and the Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.12.1987 held the share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Ram Prasad as 1/4 in the land in dispute. 4. In the meantime, Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 22.03.1985, in respect of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Sudhara (respondent-4). Smt. Sudhara filed an application (registered as Case No. 174) under Section 12 of the Act for mutating her name over the land in dispute. Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.09.2002 directed for recording the name of Smt. Sudhara over 1/2 share of the land in dispute. 5. Smt. Sudhara filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 405) from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1987. Jhinkan filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 713) from the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation. The petitioners stated that Jhinkan (deceased petitioner) and Mangarey were real brothers. In family settlement between two brothers, Jhinkan was given 3/4 share and Mangarey was given 1/4 share. On the basis of family settlement, Naib Tahsildar by order dated 18.01.1979 recorded share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Mangarey as 1/4. Before Consolidation Officer Ram Prasad also entered in to compromise with Jhinkan and admitted his 1/4. As such Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.12.1987 held the share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Ram Prasad as 1/4 in the land in dispute. 6. Before Consolidation Officer Ram Prasad also entered in to compromise with Jhinkan and admitted his 1/4. As such Consolidation Officer by order dated 24.12.1987 held the share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and share of Ram Prasad as 1/4 in the land in dispute. 6. Smt. Sudhara took the plea that the land in dispute was ancestral property of Jhinkan and Mangarey, who were real brothers and had equal share in it. Mangarey executed a sale deed dated 14.02.1978 in respect of 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad, whose name was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed. Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 22.03.1985, in respect of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Sudhara (respondent-4) and her name was mutated by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 24.09.2002 on the basis of compromise. Ram Prasad (respondent-5) never filed any compromise before Consolidation Officer. The alleged compromise was not signed by Ram Prasad nor it was verified by Consolidation Officer. The order dated 24.12.1987 was secured by committing fraud on the Court. 7. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by his judgment dated 15.03.2007 held that the case of relating to the order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1987 was not registered in 'goswara' register. Same khatauni filed by Smt. Sudhara of khata 180 of 1389 F- 1394 F does not contained any mutation of the order dated 24.12.1987 but the khatauni of 1389 F- 1394 F of khata 180 filed by Jhinkan contained endorsement of the order dated 24.12.1987 which shows that endorsement of the order is a forgery. Naib Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide the shares of the co-sharers in the land in dispute. Mangarey executed a sale deed dated 14.02.1978 in respect of 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad, whose name was mutated in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed. Ram Prasad executed a sale deed dated 22.03.1985, in respect of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Smt. Sudhara. The pedigree has not been challenged by the parties. Jhinkan and Mangarey were real brothers and had 1/2 share each. On these findings the appeal of respondent- 4 was allowed while the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The pedigree has not been challenged by the parties. Jhinkan and Mangarey were real brothers and had 1/2 share each. On these findings the appeal of respondent- 4 was allowed while the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 135/139/2013) against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the order dated 09.12.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a family settlement between Jhinkan and Mangarey, in which Mangarey was given 3/4 share. On the basis of family settlement between the parties, Naib Tehsildar by order dated 18.01.1979 recorded share of Jhinkan as 3/4 and the share of Mangarey as 1/4. Ram Prasad also accepted 3/4 share of Jhinkan and entered in to compromise before Consolidation Officer. Respondents-1 and 2 illegally ignored the evidence on record and their orders are liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner sand examined the record. A copy of the sale deed dated 14.02.1978 executed by Mangarey in favour of Ram Prasad has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which he had sold his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad. The alleged family settlement was neither filed before the consolidation authorities nor proved. On the other hand from the sale deed dated 14.02.1978, theory of family settlement between the parties has been disproved. Record relating to order of Consolidation Officer dated 24.12.1987 was not registered in 'goswara' register. Mutation of the order dated 24.12.1987 in khatauni of 1389 F- 1394 F of khata 180 filed by Jhinkan was found to be forged. The copy of the compromise which has been filed was disbelieved by the Courts below for two reasons firstly that it does not contain the signature of Ram Prasad nor it was verified by Consolidation Officer. Mangarey executed sale deed dated 14.02.1978 of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad. There was no reason for Ram Prasad to admit his 1/4 share in the alleged compromise. The order of Naib Tehsildar passed in mutation proceeding in respect of share of the parties is without jurisdiction. Mangarey executed sale deed dated 14.02.1978 of his 1/2 share in the land in dispute in favour of Ram Prasad. There was no reason for Ram Prasad to admit his 1/4 share in the alleged compromise. The order of Naib Tehsildar passed in mutation proceeding in respect of share of the parties is without jurisdiction. The findings recorded by respondents-1 and 2 and the reasons given for not relying upon the order of Naib Tehsildar and Consolidation Officer are valid reasons and cannot be interfered with by this Court. 10. Admittedly Jhinkan and Mangarey were real brothers and the property in dispute was ancestral property . There was no reason for holding that Jhinkan had 3/4 share in the land in dispute. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed. ______________