JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the petitioner and Sri SC Verma for the respondents. 2. CM Application (Substitution) No. 389327 of 21014 has been filed to bring on record heirs of the sole petitioner, since deceased. The application is within time. The respondents have no objection. 3. Accordingly, the said application is allowed. 4. Let the substituted heirs be incorporated forthwith. 5. The writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of UP ZA and LR Act. The dispute in the writ petition relates to khata nos. 162 and 149, of village Gujarpur Gaharwar. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders dated 13.10.1982, 25.5.1981 and 11.1.1980, passed, respectively, by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, the Settlement Officer. Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer, Fatehgarh. 6. The land in question admittedly belonged to one Dular. The contesting respondent claims that he is son of Dular. Admittedly, the petitioner is daughter of Dular. 7. In the basic year record, the land in question was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The contesting respondent Subedar filed objection under section 9A(2), claiming to be the son of Dular and, therefore, entitled to the property in dispute. 8. The petitioner denied that the objector Subedar was the son of Dular. She alleged that Subedar was the son of Gulab. 9. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection. The name of the petitioner was ordered to be expunged and the name of Subedar was ordered to be recorded. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have illegally allowed the objection of the respondent relying upon an alleged compromise dated 30.8.1967, wherein the petitioner is alleged to have admitted the claim of Subedar in a mutation case, which pertained to village Amritpur and Udhranpur Lilapur. He contends that an admission made by Subedar in Mutation Case No. 8 regarding land of village Gujarpur Geharwar has not been taken in consideration; therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated. He contends that an admission made by Subedar in Mutation Case No. 8 regarding land of village Gujarpur Geharwar has not been taken in consideration; therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated. Further, he has placed reliance on the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and she did not know or understand the contents of the compromise application filed in Mutation Case No. 7, wherein it was written that Subedar was son of Dular. On the basis of these averments, it has been contended that the admission was not binding upon the petitioner. 11. It is next submitted that Subedar had filed a suit under section 229B, being Suit No. 25 of 1965: Subedar v. Vidyawati, which was subsequently withdrawn, without any liberty having been granted to file a fresh suit. It is, therefore, contended that the objection under section 9A(2) regarding the same land was barred. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that the courts below have not based their judgements exclusively on the admission of the petitioner in the mutation case. The judgements of the courts below are based on other evidence available on record as well. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 14. On the basis of the submissions made, only two points arise for consideration in this writ petition. The first is as to whether the three judgements passed against the petitioner are based exclusively on the alleged admissions made in mutation proceedings which, according to the petitioner, is not permissible in view of the various judgements cited on her behalf. The other point is regarding filing and withdrawal of the suit under section 229B of the UP ZA & LR Act by the contesting respondent, regarding the land which is subject-matter of this writ petition. 15. In the context of the first submission made, I have carefully perused the orders passed by all the three courts below and I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the alleged admission of the petitioner in a mutation case is not the sole basis of the orders impugned in the writ petition. 15. In the context of the first submission made, I have carefully perused the orders passed by all the three courts below and I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the alleged admission of the petitioner in a mutation case is not the sole basis of the orders impugned in the writ petition. The courts blow have also relied upon the other evidences available on record, like kutumb register, written statement filed in mutation case and the statement of the Pradhan. The SOC has noticed another additional circumstance. He has stated that although the petitioner consistently denied that Subedar, respondent no. 4, was the son of Dular, yet she did not spell out his actual parentage. At a later stage, avoters' list was filed to show that Subedar was in fact son of one Gulab. However, the SOC has referred to the statement of Pradhan of the village, who has stated that no person by the name of Gulab resides in the village. It is, therefore, clear that the case has not been decided against the petitioner relying exclusively upon her alleged admission in the mutation case. Since the judgements are supported by various other documentary and oral evidences available on record, and since no perversity has been pointed out, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. 16. As regards the contention regarding filing of the suit under section 229B and its subsequent withdrawal without permission to file a fresh suit, it would be relevant to note that the courts below have recorded a finding that this suit had been filed by the mother of Subedar and was also withdrawn by her and on her application. This was done during the minority of Subedar and, therefore, the same was not binding upon the respondent. The finding regarding minority of Subedar is a finding of fact, which cannot be assailed in a writ petition and, therefore, even the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lacks substance. 17. This was done during the minority of Subedar and, therefore, the same was not binding upon the respondent. The finding regarding minority of Subedar is a finding of fact, which cannot be assailed in a writ petition and, therefore, even the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lacks substance. 17. Since the alleged admission of the petitioner in the mutation case is not found to be the sole basis of the orders impugned, I do not consider it necessary to refer to various case-laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that an admission made in the mutation proceedings has no relevance in the title proceeding. This question is not relevant for the purposes of the instant writ petition. 18. Accordingly, and in view of the above, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.