JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pavan Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of an objection under Section 9-A (2) filed by the petitioners and seeks quashing of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to land of khata no. 418 of Village-Pathere Adhawal, Pargana-Muthour, Tehsil & District-Fatehpur. 4. The contesting respondents were also recorded over the khata in question in the basic year. The objection under Section 9-A (2) was filed by the petitioners claiming that the land belonged exclusively to them. It was therefore prayed to the name of the respondents be expunged. 5. It transpires from the record that initially the objection was decided on the basis of a compromise between the parties. However, an appeal filed by the petitioners, the compromise order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision. 6. Upon remand, the petitioners appear to have filed an altogether fresh objection. 7. The objection of the petitioners was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer holding that the name of the respondents was entered in the khatauni on 1356 Fasli. This entry had not been challenged by the petitioners for 40 long years till the unit was brought under consolidation operations. He further observed that there was a presumption of correctness of the entry in 1356 Fasli. This presumption was however rebuttable but the objector had filed to establish that this entry in 1356 Fasli was incorrect. He therefore dismissed the objection. 8. On appeal, the Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the same and, therefore, the name of the respondents was ordered to be expunged, on the reasoning that the property in question was ancestral property; the common ancestor was never recorded thereon and, therefore opined that the entry in favour of the respondents was fraudulent. 9. The revisional court has set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that there was evidence on record to show that the respondents-revisionists belonged to the family of the petitioners. There was ample oral evidence in this regard available on record. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without adverting to the oral evidence available on record. There was ample oral evidence in this regard available on record. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer without adverting to the oral evidence available on record. The appellate order was therefore found to be vitiated, as it failed to consider material evidence available on record. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further agreed with the reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer that the petitioner-objectors had failed to establish that the entry in 1356 Fasli wherein name of the respondents was also entered was either incorrect or fraudulent. He therefore allowed the objection set aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that a long standing entry had never been challenged earlier and also because it has not been established on record that this entry was either incorrect or fraudulent. 11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that their court was recorded over the land in question in 1334 Fasli and there is no explanation as to how the name of the State respondents also came on record in 1356 Fasli. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was correct and the revisional order deserves to be set aside. 12. All the courts below have categorically observed that there is no revenue record available in the record room for a period of 22 years between 1334 to 1356 Fasli. 13 It is also established on record that the entries in favour of the petitioners were continuous entries right from 1354 onwards till the basic year. In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the petitioners have been unable to show that the entry in 1356 Fasli was either incorrect or fraudulent, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. For the same reason, I do not find any ground for interference with the revisional order also. 14. Accordingly, I find that, the impugned order does not warrant interference. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petition dismissed.