JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Verma, for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.01.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 23.02.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17.06.2015, passed in proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is for inheritance of chaks 67-Aa, 204 and 441 of village Kamoliya, pargana and district Bahraich, which were carved out in the name of Ram Naresh son of Mangal. Udai Raj Pandey alias Bhallar (respondent-4) filed an objection (which has now been registered as Case No. 7 of 2009-2010) under Section 12 of the Act, for mutating his name over the chaks in dispute, claiming himself to be only son and heir of Ram Naresh, who admittedly died on 29.11.1994. The petitioners filed counter objection, for mutating their names over the chaks in dispute, claiming to be brother's sons of Ram Naresh. It has been stated by the petitioners that Ram Naresh was married to Smt. Ram Rani, from whom one son Bhallar was born, who died in the age of 2-3 years, during life time of Ram Naresh. Later on Smt. Ram Rani remarried to Deena Nath in 1979 and changed her name as Smt. Nankana Devi. Udai Raj (respondent-4) was born to Smt. Nankana Devi from Deena Nath after her remarriage. After death of Ram Naresh, Udai Raj by changing his alias name as Bhallar has malafide claiming himself as son of Ram Naresh. Ram Naresh died issueless (as his only son Bhallar had already died during his lifetime). The petitioners, being brother's sons of Ram Naresh were his nearest heirs under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and after his death they inherited the land in dispute and were in possession of it. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer who framed necessary issues. Respondent-4 filed Mark Sheet of Primary School, class Vth of the year 1992, Certificate of Junior High School of the year 1995, in which his parentage was mentioned as Ram Naresh. Certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 17.09.2006, in which date of death of Ram Naresh was mentioned as 27.11.1994 and in the family of Ram Naresh, name of Bhallar alias Udai Raj was mentioned as son of Ram Naresh. Certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 17.09.2006, in which date of death of Ram Naresh was mentioned as 27.11.1994 and in the family of Ram Naresh, name of Bhallar alias Udai Raj was mentioned as son of Ram Naresh. Photostat copies of Electoral Roll, Bank Account Pass-book of Allahabad Bank, certificate issued from District Gramya Vikas Sansthan and examined himself as PW-1 and Kailash Nath as PW-2. The petitioners filed certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 30.03.1996, relating to family of Deena Nath, in which along with the names of Deena Nath, Nankana Devi, name of Udai Raj was also recorded as son of Deena Nath and his date of birth was mentioned as 1977. Copy of the application of Ram Naresh dated 02.09.1980, application of Nankana Devi dated 07.02.1979, copy of Electoral Rolls of the year 1999 and 2009, in which parentage of Udai Raj was noted as Deena Nath. They also examined Satya Narain (DW-1), Ganesh Dutt (DW-2), Shiv Dayal (DW-3), Guni Ram (DW-4), Deo Narain (DW-5) and Asgar Ali (DW-6). Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 27.01.2010, held that admittedly Ram Naresh died on 27.11.1994. It is also admitted to the petitioners that one son namely Bhallar was born to Ram Naresh. The petitioners took plea that Bhallar died in the age of 2-3 years but there was no documentary evidence to prove the death of Bhallar. According to the evidence of the petitioners, Smt. Ram Rani remarried to Deena Nath on 07.02.1979. In the Pariwar Register relating to the family of Deena Nath, as produced by the petitioners, birth of Uday Raj was shown as 1977, which was also corroborated with Pariwar Register, relating to family of Ram Naresh filed by Respondent-4, which shows that at the time of remarriage Udai Raj alias Bhallar, who was of tender age, went with his mother to the house of Deena Nath. As Ram Rani remarried to Deena Nath in the year 1979 and birth of Udai Raj was proved as 1977 as such it was proved that Udai Raj was son of Ram Naresh and not of Deena Nath. As Ram Rani remarried to Deena Nath in the year 1979 and birth of Udai Raj was proved as 1977 as such it was proved that Udai Raj was son of Ram Naresh and not of Deena Nath. Ram Naresh was alive till November, 1994 and during his lifetime parentage of Udai Raj was recorded as Ram Naresh in his Primary School and Junior High School records as such it was proved that Bhallar alias Udai Raj was son of Ram Naresh and not the son of Deena Nath. As both the parties have contested the case, as such any irregularity in issue of proclamation has no effect. On these findings, the objection of respondent-4 was allowed, his name was directed to be recorded over the land in dispute and objection of the petitioners was dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 456) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 23.02.2011 found that admittedly one son Bhallar was born to Smt. Ram Rani from Ram Naresh, whose year of birth was mentioned as 1977 in the Pariwar Register of Ram Naresh. Smt. Ram Rani left Ram Naresh after two-three years of the birth of Bhallar. Birth of Udai Raj was mentioned as 1977 in Pariwar Register of Deena Nath from which it was proved that Udai Raj was born prior to remarriage of Smt. Ram Rani. From which it was proved that Uadi Raj was not son of Deena Nath. Ram Naresh was alive till November, 1994 and during his lifetime parentage of Udai Raj was recorded as Ram Naresh in his Primary School and Junior High School records as such it was proved that Bhallar alias Udai Raj was son of Ram Naresh. Both the parties are contesting the matter as such irregularity in issue of proclamation has no adverse effect. From the evidence of the petitioners, it is not proved that Uadi Raj alias Bhallar was son of Deena Nath. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. 6. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 201108150021) from the aforesaid order. Both the parties are contesting the matter as such irregularity in issue of proclamation has no adverse effect. From the evidence of the petitioners, it is not proved that Uadi Raj alias Bhallar was son of Deena Nath. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. 6. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 201108150021) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 17.06.2015, held that there is no evidence relating to remarriage of Smt. Ram Rani but it was proved that she left her husband Ram Naresh, after 2-3 years of birth of Bhallar and began to live with Deena Nath. From extract of Pariwar Register it was proved that Bhallar was born in 1977. Real brother of Ram Naresh has stated that Bhallar alias Udai Raj was son of Ram Naresh. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that it was proved that Smt. Ram Rani wife of Ram Naresh left him and began to live with Deena Nath since 1979 as his wife. Respondent-4 filed his Mark Sheet of Primary School, class Vth of the year 1992 and Certificate of Junior High School of the year 1995, in which his date of birth was mentioned as 30.07.1982. The consolidation authorities although relied upon these documents in respect of parentage of Uadi Raj alias Bhallar as noted in it as Ram Naresh but at the same time they ignored, the date of birth of Udai Raj as mentioned it it, from which it was proved that he was born on 30.07.1982, i.e. after remarriage of Smt. Ram Rani to Deena Nath. Respondent-4 was not son of Ram Naresh. His name was also recorded in Pariwar Register relating to family of Deena Nath as his son. Previous Electoral Roll was incorrect, which was later on corrected, in which parentage of Udai Raj alias Bhallar was corrected as Deena Nath. The petitioners examined five independent witnesses of the village, who had fully supported the case of the petitioners. The consolidation authorities have illegally ignored date of birth of respondent-4 as mentioned in his School Certificate, documentary and oral evidence adduced by the petitioners. By changing alias name as Bhallar, Udai Raj is malafide claiming properties of Ram Naresh although he is son of Deena Nath. The consolidation authorities have illegally ignored date of birth of respondent-4 as mentioned in his School Certificate, documentary and oral evidence adduced by the petitioners. By changing alias name as Bhallar, Udai Raj is malafide claiming properties of Ram Naresh although he is son of Deena Nath. His witness Kailash Nath was his real uncle and is a highly interested witness. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioners admitted that one son Bhallar was born to Smt. Ram Rani from Ram Naresh. Respondent-4 filed Pariwar Register relating to the family of Ram Naresh, in which name of Bhallar was mentioned as son of Ram Naresh and his birth was shown as 1977. The petitioners filed Pariwar Register relating to the family of Deena Nath, in which name of Uadi Raj alias Bhallar was mentioned as son of Deena Nath and his birth was also shown as 1977. According to the petitioners, Smt. Ram Rani wife of Ram Naresh remarried to Deena Nath in 1979. On its basis Consolidation Officer found that as at the time of remarriage of Smt. Ram Rani, Bhallar, being of a tender age, went with his mother to the house of Deena Nath, where his name was recorded as his son in his Pariwar Register. Apart from Udai Raj no other son was born to Deena Nath from Smt. Ram Rani alias Nankana. Thus from the date of birth as mentioned in Pariwar Register of Deena Nath, finding has been recorded that Udai Raj alias Bhallar was the son of Ram Naresh and not of Deena Nath as Smt. Ram Rani began to live with him since 1979. The petitioners took the plea that Bhallar died in the age of two-three years but could not adduce any documentary evidence in this respect. This finding has been affirmed from all the consolidation authorities. The finding and reasons could not be said to be illegal or liable interference by this Court. 9. So far as the date of birth as mentioned in School Records of respondent-4 have been illegally ignored by the consolidation authorities, are concerned, School Records were relied to prove parentage of respondent-4, in which his parentage was noted as Ram Naresh. The finding and reasons could not be said to be illegal or liable interference by this Court. 9. So far as the date of birth as mentioned in School Records of respondent-4 have been illegally ignored by the consolidation authorities, are concerned, School Records were relied to prove parentage of respondent-4, in which his parentage was noted as Ram Naresh. The Consolidation Officer found that as Ram Naresh died on 27.11.1994 while respondent-4 passed Vth class in 1992 and VIIIth class in 1995, in which his parentage was mentioned as Ram Naresh as such it was more probable that during his life time Ram Naresh got respondent-4 admitted in school. If Deena Nath would have admitted respondent-4 in school then there would be no reason for him for not mentioning parentage of respondent-4 as Deena Nath, if he had been his son. Thus so far as parentage of respondent-4 as mentioned in school records are concerned it was corroborated with Pariwar Register of Ram Naresh and also admission of the petitioners that one son Bhallar was born to Ram Naresh. So far date of birth mentioned in it was not corroborated with the date of birth of respondent-4 as mentioned in the Pariwar Register of Deena Nath as such Consolidation Officer relied upon the parentage for the reasons that the petitioners had admitted that one son was born to Ram Naresh but could not prove that he had died in the age of two-three years. There is no illegality in it. 10. So far as the arguments that the petitioners examined five independent witnesses of the village to prove their case and the consolidation authorities have illegally ignored it, is concerned, oral and documentary evidence have adduced by the petitioners and respondent-4. The courts below after assessment of evidence on record, recorded findings of fact. Reasons were given for not accepting the evidence of the petitioners. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, in not competent to reassess the evidence on records and take contrary view. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.