JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Dharm Pal Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ashok Kumar Singh, for the petitioners, and Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, for the contesting respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 14.7.1999 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.10.2005 passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of land recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 225-Aa [consisting plots 443-M (area 11-19-0 bigha), 445 (area 0-9-0 bigha), 447/507 (area 0-2-0 bigha)] which were recorded, in the names of Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal sons of Genda Singh and Lalloo Singh son of Dhan Singh and 225-Ba [consisting plot 443-M (area 21-8-0 bigha) which was recorded in the names of Nardeo son of Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal sons of Genda Singh and Lalloo Singh son of Dhan Singh, of village Meman, pargana Kiratpur, district Bijnor. It may be mentioned that Ram Swaroop transferred an area of 5-7-0 bigha of plot 443 to his son Nardeo through sale-deed dated 15.7.1991, whose name was mutated by the order of Naib-Tahsildar, dated 26.10.1991, due to which this plot was bifurcated in two part and recorded in two aforesaid khatas. 3. During consolidation, following objections under section 9 were filed "(i) Lalloo Singh filed two objections claiming 1/2 share in both khatas, on the ground that entire land was ancestral property of common ancestor Bhajan Singh, who had four sons Dhan Singh, Khusi Singh, Genda Singh and Amir Singh. Khusi Singh and Amir Singh died issueless and their share was inherited by their brothers Dhan Singh and Genda Singh as such his share in the land in dispute was 1/2. (ii) Mahabir Singh (petitioner-3) filed an objection claiming plot 443-M (area 0.096 hectare) as his exclusive grove. (iii) Smt. Kesar (now represented by respondents-4 to 7) filed an objection for recording her name over plot 443-M (area 8-0-0 bigha) on the basis of sale deed dated 7.1.1994 by Lalloo Singh in her favour. (iv) Kalyan Singh (respondent-8) filed an objection claiming an area of 7-0-0 bigha of plot 443-M on the basis of sale deed dated 27.1.1994 executed by Lalloo Singh in his favour. (iv) Kalyan Singh (respondent-8) filed an objection claiming an area of 7-0-0 bigha of plot 443-M on the basis of sale deed dated 27.1.1994 executed by Lalloo Singh in his favour. Another objection was filed for remaining share of Lalloo Singh and it has been stated that Lalloo Singh in his Will dated 19.9.1992 had given his properties to Kalyan Singh, Nardeo Singh sons of Ram Swaroop, Mahabir Singh and Gambhir Singh sons of Har Swaroop. Third objection was filed claiming 1/2 share in the share of his father Ram Swaroop. (v) Rajkali (daughter of Smt. Kesar) filed an objection, for remaining share of Lalloo Singh on the basis of his Will dated 16.10.1995." 4. The respondents alleged that Ram Swaroop and others (now represented by the petitioners), in their earlier counter objection filed on 4.1.1994 admitted 1/2 share of Lalloo Singh both khatas. Later on they filed another counter objection dated 7.1.1994, denying share of Lalloo Singh in both the khatas. They took plea that Bhajan Singh had only two sons, Genda Singh and Amir Singh. After death of Bhajan Singh names of Genda Singh and Amir Singh alone were recorded as his heirs in khatauni 1337-F. Genda Singh died oft 28.4.1994 leaving behind his minor sons Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal, whose names were mutated in revenue record under guardianship of; Amir Singh, their uncle. Shortly thereafter Amir Singh also died on 12.4.1945. Taking advantage of minority of the sons of Genda Singh, Lalloo Singh, who was their servant (charbaha) got his name also recorded in the revenue record. Dhan Singh and Khusi Singh were not the sons of Bhajan Singh. Entry of the name of Lalloo Singh over the Land in dispute was mere forgery and on the basis of forged entry Lalloo Singh will have no right over the land in dispute nor he could create right in favour of third persons on the basis of sale deed and Will etc. They prayed for deleting the name of Lalloo Singh and also denied filing of objection dated 4.1.1994. 5. They prayed for deleting the name of Lalloo Singh and also denied filing of objection dated 4.1.1994. 5. The objections were consolidated and tried together by Consolidation Officer who framed five issues namely (i) What was correct share of the parties?, (ii) Whether Mahabir was exclusive grove holder of plot 443-M (area 0.096 hectare)?, (iii) Whether Har Swaroop was bhumidhar with transferable right of the khata in dispute?, (iv) Whether Smt. Kesar and Kalyan Singh were co-tenant in the land in dispute on the basis of sale-deeds executed by Lalloo Singh in their favour? (v) Whether plea of Ram Swaroop and others that Lalloo Singh was not a co-tenure holder in the land in dispute, was barred under section 49 of the Act? Before Consolidation Officer apart from documentary evidence, the parties examined witnesses Ram Swaroop, Genda son of Heera, Kalyan Singh, Udayveer Singh, Nayab Hasnain, Ram Kishan Sharma, Salim Ahmad, Bhopal Singh, Mahraj Singh, Devi Singh and Braj Nandan Sharma. During pendency of the matter before Consolidation Officer Smt. Kesar died on 8.6.1995 and Bhopal Singh and others (respondents-4 to 7) were substituted her heirs. Lalloo Singh died on 15.11.1995. As stated above, Kalyan Singh and Rajkali claimed themselves as his heir on the basis of different wills executed in their favour. Bhopal Singh and others executed sale-deed in favour of Narendra Kumar Agrawal and Anis Vishal (respondents-9 and 10) of the land which was purchased by Smt. Kesar from Lalloo Singh. They also filed objection and adduced their evidence. Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties found that Mahavir Singh was exclusive grove holder of plot 443-M (area 0.096 hectare). Har Swaroop has not purchased any land. Smt. Kesar purchased plot 443-M (area 8-0-0 bigha) through sale-deed dated 7.1.1994 from Lalloo Singh. Kalyan Singh purchased plot 443-M (area 7-0-0 bigha) through sale-deed dated 27.01.1994 from Lalloo Singh. Objection of Ram Swaroop and others for expunging name of Lalloo Singh from the land in dispute was barred under section 49 of the Act as they had not filed any objection in this respect in previous consolidation proceeding although the name of Lalloo Singh was recorded at that time also. They accepted Lalloo Singh as co-sharer in the land in dispute in previous litigation and loan agreement through out. According to the pedigree, Lalloo Singh had 1/2 share. They accepted Lalloo Singh as co-sharer in the land in dispute in previous litigation and loan agreement through out. According to the pedigree, Lalloo Singh had 1/2 share. Sale-deeds and Will dated 27.1.1994 executed by Lalloo Singh were proved while Will set up by Rajkali was not proved. On these findings the share of the parties were decided and transfers made by Lalloo Singh in favour of Smt. Kesar and Kalyan Singh and thereafter by heirs of Smt. Kesar in favour of respondents-9 and 10 were found valid. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 690 of 1999) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 23.4.2002 held that Bhajan Singh had two sons Genda Singh and Amir Singh. Khushi Singh and Dhan Singh were not the sons of Bhajan Singh. For the first time name of Lalloo Singh was recorded over the land in dispute in 1362 F, without any basis by committing forgery. Lalloo Singh had no right over the land in dispute and sale deeds and Will executed by him were invalid. No right can be derived on the basis of forged entry as such bar under section 49 of the Act would not apply. On these findings the appeal was allowed, order of Consolidation Officer was set aside and name of Lalloo Singh and his transferees were directed to be deleted from the khatas in dispute. Share of Har Swaroop and Ram Pal were held as 1/3 each and Nardeo Singh and Kalyan Singh were 1/6 each in all the properties except chak out land. 7. Bhopal Singh and others (respondents-4 to 7) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 87/2002), Nardeo Singh (petitioner-5) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 101/2002) and Kalyan Singh (respondent-8) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 105/2002), against the aforesaid order. The revisions were consolidation and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by the order dated 15.10.2005 held that Har Swaroop and others along with Lalloo Singh filed O.S. No. 178 of 1979, in which they had stated that all of them were owner in possession of plot 433 (area 33-7-9 bigha), in the plaint. Har Swaroop in his oral statement and affidavit also admitted joint possession of Lalloo Singh. They jointly took loan from U.P. Land Development Bank, Nazibabad. Har Swaroop in his oral statement and affidavit also admitted joint possession of Lalloo Singh. They jointly took loan from U.P. Land Development Bank, Nazibabad. Name of Lalloo Singh was recorded since 1959-F. In previous consolidation, which was completed in 1963, the name of Lalloo Singh was recorded in basic year but the petitioners did not challenge entry of the name of Lalloo Singh as such their plea that Lalloo Singh was not a co-tenure holder in the land in dispute, was barred under section 49 of the Act. From evidence on record it was proved that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh and Lalloo Singh had 1/2 share. No issue was framed in respect of sale deed 15.9.1994 executed by Ram Swaroop in favour of Nardeo Singh as such no right can be given to Nardeo Singh on the basis of sale-deed. On these findings, Revision No. 101/2002 was dismissed and remaining revisions were allowed and order of Consolidation Officer was affirmed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no evidence to prove that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh. On the other hand from settlement year khatauni 1337-F, it was proved that Bhajan Singh had two sons Genda Singh and Amir Singh only. Genda Singh died on 28.4.1944 and his widow Smt. Sartaji died on 16.5.1944. Names of Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal, minor sons of Genda Singh, under guardianship of Amir Singh were mutated in the revenue record, in khatauni 1351-F. Amir Singh died issueless on 12.4.1945. Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal were Still minor even at that time. Taking advantage of their minority Lalloo Singh, who was their servant (charwaha), got his name recorded in revenue record, as an heir of Amir Singh, in 1359-F, without any basis. This was collusive and fake entry. Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal were villagers and could not file any objection for deleting the name of Lalloo Singh from the revenue record, in previous consolidation, as such the forged entry continued. On the basis of forged entry, no right can be derived. Land in dispute was "occupancy tenancy" and recorded as such in 1337-F in the names of Genda Singh and Amir Singh. On the basis of forged entry, no right can be derived. Land in dispute was "occupancy tenancy" and recorded as such in 1337-F in the names of Genda Singh and Amir Singh. Section 33 (Proviso) of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 imposed a restriction on co-option of co-tenant except with written consent of Zamindar as held by this Court in Chhidda v. JDC and others 1968 RD 205. There is no evidence on record to prove that Lalloo Singh was co-opted with written consent of Zamindar. On the other hand, it was proved that Lalloo Singh got his name entered in revenue record at the time of minority of Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal in collusion with revenue authority. After date of vesting, sirdari right has been conferred to an "occupancy tenant" under section 19 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and a sirdar also does not have right of co-option as held by Division Bench of this Court in Budhlal v. DDC and others, 1982 RD 304 (DB). For claiming right under section 20(b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, on the basis of entry of "recorded occupant", the entry must be genuine and not fake as held by Supreme Court in Bechan v. Kankar 1972 RD 219. Alleged admission of Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal in O.S. No. 178 of 1979 or in the loan agreement dated 26.9.1968 will not override the statutory provisions nor fabricated entry can be treated as genuine. A forged entry will always remain forged and cannot be treated as genuine entry, merely due to bar created section 49 of the Act as held by Supreme Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed 1980 RD 300 (SC). In the objections, no foundation has been laid for applicability of section 49 of the Act, as such plea in this respect was not liable to be entertained as held by Supreme Court in Om Prakash v. Jai Prakash 1993 RD 414 (SC). It has been held by this Court in Anirudh Rai v. Board of Revenue and others1981(Suppl.) RD 1, and Shri Ram v. DDC and others 2011(112) RD 73 (DB), that if an order has been obtained by committing fraud during consolidation then bar of section 49 of the Act will not apply. It has been held by this Court in Anirudh Rai v. Board of Revenue and others1981(Suppl.) RD 1, and Shri Ram v. DDC and others 2011(112) RD 73 (DB), that if an order has been obtained by committing fraud during consolidation then bar of section 49 of the Act will not apply. In view of section 27(2) of the Act, it can be proved that record prepared during previous consolidation were not correct as held by this Court in Yogendra Vikram v. Krishna Kumar 1977 RD 114. The orders of Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that disputed land was ancestral property, coming from the time of common ancestor Bhajan Singh, who had four sons Dhan Singh, Khusi Singh, Genda Singh and Amir Singh. Khusi Singh died issueless and his share was inherited by his brothers Dhan Singh, Genda Singh and Amir Singh. After death of Amir Singh his share was inherited by Lalloo Singh son of Dhan Singh and Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal son of Genda Singh as at that time brothers of Amir Singh were not alive. As such Lalloo Singh had 1/2 share in land in dispute. Rent and land revenue were jointly paid. After death of Bhajan Singh, name of two sons Genda Singh and Amir Singh were mutated while names of two sons Dhan Singh and Khusi Singh were left due to mistake of patwari. The mistake was later on corrected at the time of mutation after death of Amir Singh, in 1352-F. The Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation relying upon oral statement of Kalyan Singh son of Ram Swaroop and Ram Kishan Sharma, (aged about 80 years) who was a family priest as well as other corroborative evidence (land revenue receipts etc.) found that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh. This finding is a finding of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence on record. Entry of the name of Lalloo Singh was throughout continued from 1352-F to basic consolidation year 1991. This finding is a finding of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate evidence on record. Entry of the name of Lalloo Singh was throughout continued from 1352-F to basic consolidation year 1991. Previously consolidation operation was held in the village and finalized in 1963 but no objection was raised for deleting the name of Lalloo Singh from the land in dispute as such claim of the petitioners, if any, is barred under section 49 of the Act. Lalloo Singh, who was issueless, throughout remained in joint with the sons of Genda Singh and in joint possession of the land in dispute and paid land revenue. O.S. No. 178 of 1979 was jointly filed by Ram Swaroop, Har Swaroop and Ram Pal and Lalloo Singh, in which it was stated that they were in joint owner in possession. They also jointly took loan and executed loan agreement dated 26.9.1968 in favour of U.P. Land Development Bank. Kalyan Singh son of Ram Swaroop admitted right of Lalloo Singh over the land in dispute. The petitioners in their counter objection dated 4.1.1994 admitted 1/2 share of Lalloo Singh. When Lalloo Singh executed sale deed dated 7.1.1994 in favour of his real sister Smt. Kesar of an area of 8-0-0 bigha land, then the petitioners had annoyed with him and filed another objection and denied right of Lalloo Singh in the land in dispute. Even in this objection, there was no plea that entry of 1359-F, in which name of Lalloo Singh was recorded was forged. An admission is the best evidence, which can be relied upon against the person making admission as held by Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Samir Chandra Chaudhary (2005) 5 SCC 784 , Avtar Singh v. Gurdial Singh 2007 (102) RD 430 (SC) and Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail 2012 (117) RD 382 (SC). If a person alleged the fraud then he is required to plead particulars of fraud and prove it. In the absence of material particulars, plea of fraud cannot be entertained as held in Mangaroo v. D.D.C. and others 2012 (116) RD 112 (HC). In the absence of any findings regarding forgery or fraud basic year entry cannot be ignored as held in Shahid Khad v. DDC 2011 (113) RD 723 (HC). In the absence of material particulars, plea of fraud cannot be entertained as held in Mangaroo v. D.D.C. and others 2012 (116) RD 112 (HC). In the absence of any findings regarding forgery or fraud basic year entry cannot be ignored as held in Shahid Khad v. DDC 2011 (113) RD 723 (HC). This Court in Gokul v. Board of Revenue 1999 (90) RD 63 (HC), held that tenancy can be acquired by way of adverse possession, estoppel and acquiescence. 10. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the records. Supreme Court in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh AIR 1994 SC 1653 , Durga Das v. Collector AIR 1996 SC 2786 , Suwarni v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223 , State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram AIR 1997 SC 2181 , Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh AIR 1997 SC 2719 , Mahila Bajrangi v. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 , and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner 2007 (103) RD 116 (SC), held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. In State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries (P) Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 382 , and Union of India v. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society 2014 (102) ALR 735 (SC), held that it is trite that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied upon for proof of establishing the title as such. 11. In view of law laid down above, only on the basis of entry of 1337-F, it cannot be said that Dhan Singh was not the son of Bhajan Singh. In the objection, the petitioners have stated that Lalloo Singh was their servant (charwaha) and got his name entered in revenue record during previous consolidation proceeding. Har Swaroop was examined as witness. In his statement, he has not said a word that Lalloo Singh was his servant (charwaha). He admitted payment of land revenue by them jointly with Lalloo Singh. Joint possession of Lalloo Singh was admitted in O.S. No. 178 of 1979 and in loan agreement dated 26.9.1968 executed in favour of U.P. Land Development Bank. In his statement, he has not said a word that Lalloo Singh was his servant (charwaha). He admitted payment of land revenue by them jointly with Lalloo Singh. Joint possession of Lalloo Singh was admitted in O.S. No. 178 of 1979 and in loan agreement dated 26.9.1968 executed in favour of U.P. Land Development Bank. Kalyan Singh son of Ram Swaroop (a family member of the petitioners) and Ram Kishan Sharma, (aged about 80 years) (a family priest) have stated that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh. There was no reason for Ram Kishan Sharma to give false statement. Their statements were relevant under section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Finding of fact, recorded by consolidation authorities that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh cannot be said to be perverse. This Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. 12. Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Gurdial Singh 2007 (102) RD 430 (SC), and Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak AIR 2007 SC 2577 , held that although by an admission, title in immovable property cannot be created but an opinion can be formed in respect of the nature of the land, subject-matter of admission. Section 33(Proviso) of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 imposed a restriction on co-option of co-tenant except with written consent of Zamindar as held by this Court in Chhidda v. JDC and others 1968 RD 205. Same restriction has been applied for co-option in sirdari holding by Division Bench of this Court in Budhlal v. DDC and others 1982 RD 304 (DB). But this Court in Gokul v. Board of Revenue, 1999 (90) RD 63 (HC) held that tenancy can be acquired by way of adverse possession, estoppel and acquiescence. Lalloo Singh did not took plea of co-option rather he pleaded inheritance by Dhan Singh from his father Bhajan Singh and also share of his brothers Khusi Singh and Amir Singh. Admission of co-tenancy of Lalloo Singh is not an admission of co-option but inheritance, for which there was no restriction either in U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 or in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 13. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin 2012 (117) RD 784 (SC), it has been held that admissions are governed under sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and such admissions can be tendered and accepted as substantive evidence. 13. In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin 2012 (117) RD 784 (SC), it has been held that admissions are governed under sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and such admissions can be tendered and accepted as substantive evidence. "Admissions" made by a party though not conclusive, is a decisive factor in a case unless the other party successfully withdraws the same or proves it to be erroneous. Even if the admission is not conclusive it may operate as an estoppel. Law requires that an opportunity be given to the person who has made admission to clarify it. In this case, the petitioners could not give any explanation in respect of their admissions in O.S. No. 178 of 1979 and in loan agreement dated 26.9.1968 executed in favour of U.P. Land Development Bank. The objections in consolidation were filed in the year 1991. Thus in view of their admissions, joint tenancy and possession of Lalloo Singh was proved. From the evidence of the respondents, it was proved that Dhan Singh was son of Bhajan Singh. Amir Singh died on 12.4.1945. At that time, brothers of Amir Singh were not alive as such under section 35 (1) of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 all the brother's son would inherit him jointly. As such share of Lalloo Singh would be 1/3+1/12=5/12. Total area of disputed land was 33-8-0 bigha as such his share would be 14-0-8 bigha. His first sale deed dated 7.1.1994 would be valid for its full area of 8-0-0 bigha but his second sale deed dated 27.1.1994 would be valid for remaining area of 6-0-8 bigha only and Will executed by him was of no consequence. 14. Entry of the name of Lalloo Singh was continued from 1359 F to basic consolidation year 1991. Previously consolidation operation was held in the village and finalized in 1963. Although name of Lalloo Singh was recorded basic consolidation year but no objection was raised for deleting the name of Lalloo Singh from the land in dispute as such claim of the petitioners is barred under section 49 of the Act. Plea of the petitioners that name of Lalloo was recorded during previous consolidation by making forgery is incorrect as such the cases relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. Plea of the petitioners that name of Lalloo was recorded during previous consolidation by making forgery is incorrect as such the cases relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners are not applicable. Section 49 of the Act as amended by U.P. Act No. V of 1954 is quoted below "49. Bar to civil jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area, for which a notification has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 4 or adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." 15. Supreme Court in Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey 1990 RD 439 (SC), held that from a perusal of section49 it is evident that declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a notification has been issued under section 4(2) and adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, had to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act only and the jurisdiction of the civil or Revenue Courts to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matter for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, has been taken away. The language used in section 49 is wide and comprehensive. Declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land lying in the area covered by the notification under section 4(2) of the Act and adjudication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act, would cover adjudication of questions as to title in respect of the said lands. Same view has been taken in Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh AIR 1990 SC 1173 , Narender Singh v. Jai Bhagwan AIR 2005 SC 582 , and Ma-dan Mohan Mishra v. Chandrika Pandey 2009(107) RD 2 (SC). Arguments that no foundation has been laid for applicability of section 49 of the Act, in the pleading, is not accepted. Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has not been applied in the proceeding under the Act. Consolidation Officer is required to decide the dispute according to the procedure of Rule 26 of the Rules, which requires for framing issues and giving opportunity of evidence to the parties. Consolidation Officer has already framed issue in this respect. 16. So far as claim of Nardeo Singh on the basis of sale-deed dated 15.7.1991, is concerned, Ram Swaroop transferred an area of 5-7-0 bigha of plot 443 to Nardeo Singh through sale-deed dated 15.7.1991, whose name was mutated by the order of Naib-Tahsildar, dated 26.10.1991. Consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to ignore it. Remedy of Kalyan Singh is to file a civil suit for its cancellation. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition partly succeeds and is partly allowed. Orders of Consolidation Officer dated 14.7.1999 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.10.2005 are partly modified and it is provided that share of Lalloo Singh would be 1/3+1/12=5/12. Total area of disputed land was 33-8-0 bigha as such his share would be 14-0-8 bigha. His first sale deed dated 7.1.1994 would be valid for its full area of 8-0-0 bigha but his second sale deed dated 27.01.1994 would be valid for remaining area of 6-0-8 bigha only and Will executed by him was of no consequence. Nardeo Singh is entitled for an area of 5-7-0 bigha of plot 443, on the basis of sale-deed dated 15.7.1991, executed by Ram Swaroop in his favour. ……………….