JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri S.P. Singh, for the petitioners and Ms. Savita Jain, for the contesting respondents-4 to 6. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 10.6.1979 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.12.1980 and for modifying the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.3.1980 to the extent that Hausila (petitioner-3) had also share in disputed land according to the pedigree, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. The dispute relates to land of khata 153 of village Ishakpur, pargana Barausa, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in basic consolidation year in the names of Chhote Lal son of Ram Kishor, Ram Jag and Daya Ram sons of Bhagwat (respondents-4 to 6) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), Ram Naresh son of Devata, Ram Pratap son of Bhawani Bux, Hausila son of Ram Dular (the petitioners) as sirdar. The respondents filed an objection (registered as case No. 3307) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of the petitioners from khata in dispute. The respondents took plea that the land in dispute was self acquired tenancy holding of Bhagwat. Other members of the pedigree had no share in it. After date of vesting, Bhagwat became sirdar of it. The petitioners contested the case on the ground that land in dispute was jointly acquired by joint family of two brothers of Devata and Mukhai. According to pedigree Ram Pratap has 1/2 share, Ram Naresh and Hausila together had 1/4 share jointly and the respondents together had 1/4 share jointly. 4. Before Consolidation Officer, the petitioners filed khatauni 1343 F and examined Ram Pratap, Ram Naresh and Hausila as witnesses. The respondents filed khatauni 1356 F, extract of TO register showing that Zamindar Vishwanath Singh filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941, CH Form-7 and CH Form-17 of previous consolidation, showing that on the basis of CH Form-7, the names of the petitioners were recorded over khata in dispute, in previous consolidation, for the first time and previous consolidation was canceled by notification under Section 6 of the Act and examined Ram Jag as witness. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 6.10.1979, held that Ram Pratap, aged about 59 years, stated that partition in family had taken place 10-12 years ago, while Ram Naresh aged about 85 years stated that Devata and Mukhai were living separately during their life time and Mukhai died about 100 years ago. Thus partition between Devata and Mukhai had taken place more than 100 years ago. Name of Devata alone was recorded with period of cultivation of 14 years, in khatauni 1343 F, which shows that land was acquired by Devata in the year 1922-23. At that time Mukhai was living separate. As such Ram Pratap had no share in it. Issue as to whether name of Bhagwat was recorded over the land in dispute by inheritance arises? Name of Bhagwat was recorded in 1356 F, as hereditary tenant with 7 years period of cultivation. From statement of Ram Naresh, it was proved that at that time Devata was alive as such the name of Bhagwat was not recorded by way of inheritance. The respondents filed extract of TO Register from which it was proved that then Zamindar, Vishwanath Singh had filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941. Although details of land in dispute are not mentioned in it but there is no evidence that apart from land in dispute there was any other land in the name of Devata and same property came to be recorded in the name of Bhagwat in 1356 F as such it was proved that Devata was ejected from the land in dispute in the year 1941 and fresh settlement was made by Zamindar of the land in dispute in favour of Bhagwat in 1949, as self acquired tenancy holding of Bhagwat, in which the petitioners had no share. From CH Form-7 of previous consolidation, it was proved that names of the petitioners were recorded over it in unauthorized way and previous consolidation operation was canceled by notification under Section 6 of the Act. On these findings, he allowed objection of the respondents and deleted names of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 21 and 29) from aforesaid order. In the appeal, fresh documentary evidence were filed, which were khatauni, khasra and land revenue receipts etc. On these findings, he allowed objection of the respondents and deleted names of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 21 and 29) from aforesaid order. In the appeal, fresh documentary evidence were filed, which were khatauni, khasra and land revenue receipts etc. subsequent to previous consolidation operation. The appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 10.3.1980 held that there was no evidence to show that Bhagwat was living separately from the petitioners. The land in dispute was acquired at the time, when family was joint, in the name of Bhagwat as such all the family members had share in it. Only on the basis of premises, Consolidation Officer held that when land in dispute came to be recorded in the name of Bhagwat, Devata was alive. In extract of TO register, details of land in dispute was not mentioned but on the basis of premises, Consolidation Officer held that Devata was ejected from the land in dispute. From CH Form-7, it was proved that the names of the petitioners were recorded on the basis of order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, which was not challenged by the respondents as such in spite of the consolidation operation was canceled by notification under Section 6, final orders passed in it was valid, by which the respondents had accepted claim of co-tenancy of the petitioners. From khasra, receipts of land revenue and irrigation dues possession of the petitioners was proved. On these findings, he allowed the appeal, set aside order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.10.1979 and held share of Ram Pratap as 1/2, Ram Naresh as 1/4 and Ram Kishore, Chhote Lal and Daya Ram as 1/4. 6. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3725) from aforesaid order. Hausila (petitioner-3) filed another revision (registered as Revision No. 3812), claiming that his share was inadvertently not given. Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated and heard both the revisions and by order dated 10.12.1980, held that admittedly the land in dispute was not acquired by Paltu, common ancestor. There is no evidence to prove that land in dispute was jointly acquired by Devata and Mukhai sons of Paltu. From khatauni 1343 F, it was proved that the land in dispute was acquired for the first time in 1922-23 in the name of Devata. There is no evidence to prove that land in dispute was jointly acquired by Devata and Mukhai sons of Paltu. From khatauni 1343 F, it was proved that the land in dispute was acquired for the first time in 1922-23 in the name of Devata. As such Ram Pratap cannot get any share in it. Findings of Consolidation Officer, on the basis of oral evidence, relating to partition in family does not suffer from any illegality. Name of Bhagwat was recorded in 1356 F, as hereditary tenant with period of cultivation as 7 years. From statement of Ram Naresh, it was proved that at that time Devata was alive as such the name of Bhagwat was not recorded by way of inheritance. The respondents filed extract of TO Register from which it was proved that then Zamindar, Vishwanath Singh had filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941. Although details of land in dispute are not mentioned in it but the petitioners could not show that there was any other property in the name Devata at that time and same property came to be recorded in the name of Bhagwat in 1356 F as such it was proved that Devata was ejected from the land in dispute in the year 1941 and fresh settlement was made by Zamindar of the land in dispute in favour of Bhagwat in 1949, which was his self acquired tenancy holding, in which the petitioners had no share. From CH Form-7 of previous consolidation, it was proved that names of the petitioners were illegally recorded over it and previous consolidation operation was canceled by notification under Section 6 of the Act. On these findings, he allowed the revision of the respondents, set aside the order of appellate authority dated 10.3.1980 and affirmed order of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the revision of Hausila Prasad. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has misread and misinterpreted oral evidence of the witnesses. Finding that partition between Devata and Mukhai took place 100 years ago was illegal. The family of both brother was joint at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute as such all the members of the family had share in it according to pedigree. Finding that partition between Devata and Mukhai took place 100 years ago was illegal. The family of both brother was joint at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute as such all the members of the family had share in it according to pedigree. There was no evidence to show that Devata was ejected by zamindar or fresh settlement was made in favour of Bhagwat. Share of the petitioners was admitted before Assistant Consolidation Officer in previous consolidation, and on its basis CH Form-7 was prepared and the names of the petitioners were recorded alongwith the respondents over the land in dispute, which was never challenged by the respondents. The petitioners through out remained in joint possession of the land in dispute and had been paying land revenue and irrigation dues etc. He relied upon judgment of this Court in Hardwar v. Smt. Kulwanta, 2013 (120) RD 210, in which it has been held that burden of proof was upon the respondents to prove the names of the petitioners were illegally recorded over the land in dispute. Awadh Narain v. DDC and others, 2012(7) ADJ 495 , in which it has been held that allowing revision without setting aside findings of Settlement Officer Consolidation, is illegal. Moti Ram v. DDC and others, 2013 (119) RD 311 , in which it has been held Deputy Director of Consolidation has limited jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. One fact, which is relevant, is noted that Kamta and Ram Kripal, who were father’s brother’s sons of Hausila have not claimed their right over the land in dispute. If the property in dispute was ancestral property, then they had also their share in it. Admittedly names of the petitioners came to be recorded for the first time, in previous consolidation, by the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 6.2.1958. A perusal of CH Form-7, Annexure-5 to writ petition, shows that on the basis of statement of Pradhan, Assistant Consolidation Officer has recorded the names of the respondents as the heirs of Bhagwat as he was dead and at the same time the names of the petitioners were also recorded as co-sharers without disclosing share of any of the parties. A perusal of CH Form-7, Annexure-5 to writ petition, shows that on the basis of statement of Pradhan, Assistant Consolidation Officer has recorded the names of the respondents as the heirs of Bhagwat as he was dead and at the same time the names of the petitioners were also recorded as co-sharers without disclosing share of any of the parties. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents had any notice of this order. At that time, order of mutation of Assistant Consolidation Officer had no effect of order passed in title proceeding. Consolidation operation was canceled by notification under Section 6 of the Act, later on. No right can accrue to the petitioners on the basis of this entry. Subsequent khatauni, khasra or land revenue and irrigation dues prepared on its basis also do not improve the title of the petitioners in any way. 9. There is no evidence to prove that the land in dispute was of the time of common ancestor Paltu or jointly acquired by Devata and Mukhai sons of Paltu. Only evidence i.e. khatauni 1343 F was filed in which name of Devata was recorded in ziman-4 with 14 years period of cultivation. As such it came in his name in 1922-23. Ram Naresh (petitioner-1) aged about 85 years stated that Devata and Mukhai were living separately during their life time and Mukhai died about 100 years ago. Thus partition between Devata and Mukhai had taken place more than 100 years ago. At time of acquisition of the land in dispute, Ram Pratap grand son of Mukhai was living separate. As such Ram Pratap had no share in it. There can be no reason to disbelieve oral statement of Ram Naresh or to believe oral statement of Ram Pratap. In any case, this Court has no jurisdiction to record fresh reasons in respect of credibility of the witness. 10. Name of Bhagwat was recorded in 1356 F, as hereditary tenant with 7 years period of cultivation. From statement of Ram Naresh, it was proved that at that time Devata was alive as such the name of Bhagwat was not recorded by way of inheritance. The petitioner has filed a report endorsed on the folio to obtain certified copy of khatauni 1356 F, in which it has been mentioned that original khatauni is in torn condition and its certified copy cannot be issued. The petitioner has filed a report endorsed on the folio to obtain certified copy of khatauni 1356 F, in which it has been mentioned that original khatauni is in torn condition and its certified copy cannot be issued. Evidence before Consolidation Officer was completed in 1979. Now this report dated 23.12.2011 cannot be taken notice by this Court, after such a long life. No such evidence was given before Consolidation Officer to prove that khatauni 1356 F was not reliable. The respondents filed extract of TO Register from which it was proved that then Zamindar, Vishwanath Singh had filed Suit No. 221, under Section 163 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, for ejectment of Devata, which was decreed on 9.10.1941. Although details of land in dispute are not mentioned in it but there is no evidence that apart from land in dispute there was any other land in the name of Devata and same property came to be recorded in the name of Bhagwat in 1356 F as such it was proved that Devata was ejected from the land in dispute in the year 1941 and fresh settlement was made by Zamindar of the land in dispute in favour of Bhagwat in 1949, as self acquired tenancy holding of Bhagwat, in which the petitioners had no share. Even if it is found that at that time sons of Devata were living jointly, a member of joint Hindu family is not debarred from acquiring property separately. Findings of facts in these respect cannot be interfered by this Court. 11. The counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Avadh v. Ram Das, (2008) 8 SCC 712, in which it has been held that a person recorded as occupant in 1356 F and 1359 F has become sirdar on the date of vesting. Marabasappa v. Ningappa, (2011) 9 SCC 451 , and judgments of this Court in Smt. Kewala v. DDC and others, 2014 (32) LCD 552 and Kamla Prasad v. DDC and others, 2014 (32) LCD 1052, no presumption can be raised that a property acquired in the name of one member of the joint family was joint family property. The petitioners in this case could not prove that land in dispute was acquired with joint family fund. The petitioners in this case could not prove that land in dispute was acquired with joint family fund. This Court in Sheo Nath v. DDC and others, 1983 RD 107 and Bodh Raj v. JDC and others, 1995 (13) LDC 1121, held that a member of joint Hindu family is not debarred from acquiring property separately. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.