JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri D.B. Yadav, for the petitioner and Sri Triveni Shankar, for respondents-3 to 10. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 09.04.2015, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The disputed between the parties is in respect of plots 46/3 (area 0.63 acre) and 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) of village Katari, pargana Katehar, district Varanasi, which was record in basic consolidation year khata-185, in the names of Raghunath, Keshav, Girija, Ram Chandra and Murari sons of Ram Avtar, Ram Prakash and Mangla sons of Yadunath along with other plots. 4. Ambika Choubey (the petitioner) filed two objections dated 15.02.1977 under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording the disputed plots in his name. It has been stated by the petitioner that the land in disputed fell in kurra of his predecessor in the partition decree dated 27.07.1911/12.09.1927 between Hanuman (predecessor of the respondents) and Ram Bharos (predecessor of the petitioner). Due to inadvertent error of Lekhpal, the disputed plots were wrongly record in khata of the respondents. 5. The petitioners contested the objections and filed their counter objections. They stated that disputed plots were their holdings and in their possession. The petitioner has no concern with it. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 06.10.1980 held that disputed plots fell in kurra of the predecessor of the petitioner in partition decree dated 27.07.1911/ 12.09.1927 between Hanuman and Ram Bharos. It has been wrongly recorded in khata of the respondents. On these findings, he allowed the objection and directed for recording the name of the petitioner over disputed plots. The respondents filed two applications for recalling for recalling the aforesaid orders, which were rejected by order of Consolidation Officer dated 04.11.1980. The respondents filed four appeals from aforesaid orders. These appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 18.03.1985 dismissed the appeals. 6. The respondents filed a revision against the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 09.04.2015, held that plot 296 was not record in the name of Hanuman or Ram Bharos in 1291 F. In 1308 F and 1334 F, plot 296 was record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer widow of Mahavir. 6. The respondents filed a revision against the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 09.04.2015, held that plot 296 was not record in the name of Hanuman or Ram Bharos in 1291 F. In 1308 F and 1334 F, plot 296 was record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer widow of Mahavir. It is alleged that partition between Hanuman and Ram Bharos took place on 27.07.1911, corresponding to 1318 F. As plot in disputed was not record in the names of Hanuman and Ram Bharos, it could not be partitioned between them. Alleged partition was illegal and was never acted upon. Plot 296/1 (area 0.59 acre) was record in the name of Jaikaran, Narottam and Nanhkoo, while plot 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) was recorded in the name of Ram Dawar son of Hanuman, in 1356 F and 1359 F. Same entry continued after date of vesting. As such it was not proved that plot 296 belonged to predecessor's of Ambika. Plot 46/2 (area 0.63 acre), 46/4 (area 0.54 acre) and 46/6 (area 0.84 acre) were record in the name of Ambika in 1356 F and 1359 F and its area was not deficient. On these findings he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and maintained basic year entry. Hence this petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents although filed counter objection before Consolidation Officer but they did not contest the case thereafter. Similarly, they did not pursue their appeals seriously as alleged by them in memorandum of the revision. The petitioner has stated that the land in disputed was subject matter of partition decree dated 27.07.1911/12.09.1927. The petitioner filed partition decree to prove that disputed plots fell in kurra of the predecessor of the petitioner. The respondents did not take plea that land in disputed not ancestral property. They took plea that partition was never acted upon. This plea was incorrect inasmuch as other plots mention in partition decree dated 27.07.1911/12.09.1927 were still with the respective parties. Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a third case that disputed plots were record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer, who was outsider of the family. He submits that Smt. Lakhi Kuer was widow daughter of Shiv Bhajan and sister of Hanuman and Ram Bharos. Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a third case that disputed plots were record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer, who was outsider of the family. He submits that Smt. Lakhi Kuer was widow daughter of Shiv Bhajan and sister of Hanuman and Ram Bharos. Some property was got recorded in her name by Shiv Bhajan for her maintenance. After her death, the property in her name was reverted to the family of Hanuman and Ram Bharos. Other plots record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer were also included in compromise dated 27.07.1911. Later on, final decree for partition was passed on 12.09.1927, on the basis of compromise dated 27.07.1911. Finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that partition was not acted upon is incorrect and based upon conjectures and surmised. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 09.04.2015, found that plot 296 was not record in the name of Hanuman or Ram Bharos in 1291 F. In 1308 F and 1334 F, plot 296 was record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer widow of Mahavir. Partition is allegedly held between Hanuman and Ram Bharos on 27.07.1911, corresponding to 1318 F. As plot in disputed was not record in the names of Hanuman and Ram Bharos, it could not be partitioned between them. Alleged partition was illegal and was never acted upon. After death of Smt. Lakhi Kuer, plot 296/1 (area 0.59 acre) was record in the name of Jaikaran, Narottam and Nanhkoo, outsider to the family, while plot 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) was recorded in the name of Ram Dawar son of Hanuman, in 1356 F and 1359 F. Same entry continued after date of vesting up to consolidation operation. Thus plot 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) was self acquired property of predecessors of the respondents and the petitioner has no share in it. Plot 46/2 (area 0.63 acre), 46/4 (area 0.54 acre) and 46/6 (area 0.84 acre) were record in the name of Ambika in 1356 F and 1359 F and its area was not deficient. For the first time, by way of Supplementary Affidavit, the petitioner has taken a new plea that Smt. Lakhi Kuer was widow daughter of Shiv Bhajan. Plot 46/2 (area 0.63 acre), 46/4 (area 0.54 acre) and 46/6 (area 0.84 acre) were record in the name of Ambika in 1356 F and 1359 F and its area was not deficient. For the first time, by way of Supplementary Affidavit, the petitioner has taken a new plea that Smt. Lakhi Kuer was widow daughter of Shiv Bhajan. This factual controversy was raised for the first time in writ petition and not liable to be entertained. Burden of proof is upon the person, who claims co-tenancy to prove that land in disputed belonged to common ancestor or jointly acquired by two branches. Its unbroken identity is also liable to be established. In the present case, plot 296 (area 0.59 acre) is record in the names of Jaikaran, Narottam and Nankoo (outsiders of the family). Thus its unbroken identity has not been proved. So far as plot 46/3 is concerned, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that there is no deficiency of area of this plot. Findings record by Deputy Director of Consolidation are findings of facts and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in it. He relied upon judgment of this Court in Shri Mohd. Tayyab v. Additional District Judge, 2000 ACJ 39, in which it has been held that even a person being unauthorised occupant is entitled to protection from Court.Nathu v. Consolidation Officer, 2006 (100) RD 552, in which it has been held that unbroken identity of the land claim to ancestral property has to be established for grant of co-tenancy right. Judgment of Supreme Court in Dharam Raj v. Chhitan 2007 (102) RD 73, held that if identity of land was changed then co-tenancy right cannot be grant. High Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact of the Court below in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain, (2010) 9 SCC 157 , in which it has been held that a new factual plea cannot be raised in writ petition. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. A perusal of memorandum of revision filed by the respondents shows that they has admitted that disputed plots were joint holdings of the parties and they were in possession of it on their respect share. They denied partition decree from the Court. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. A perusal of memorandum of revision filed by the respondents shows that they has admitted that disputed plots were joint holdings of the parties and they were in possession of it on their respect share. They denied partition decree from the Court. Deputy Director of has carved out a third case that in 1308 F and 1334 F, plot 296 was record in the name of Smt. Lakhi Kuer widow of Mahavir. Plot 296/1 (area 0.59 acre) was record in the name of Jaikaran, Narottam and Nanhkoo, while plot 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) was record in the name of Ram Dawar son of Hanuman, in 1356 F and 1359 F. as such it was a self acquisition of the respondents. In the light of this admission, it has become relevant to examine relation of the parties with Smt. Lakhi Kuer. 10. Deputy Director of Consolidation disbelieved partition decree dated 27.07.1911/12.09.1927 on the ground that plot 296 was not properties of Hanuman and Ram Bharos as such it could not be included in partition decree nor partition decree was acted upon, ignoring admission of the respondents that disputed plots were joint holdings of the parties and they were in possession of it on their respect share. In order to decide the controversy as to whether partition decree was acted upon or not Deputy Director of Consolidation would have compared other plots of the parties from compromise decree but this exercise was not done and concurrent findings of facts record by two courts below have set aside. 11. It was not a case of co-tenancy right but a case that in spite of partition decree dated 27.07.1911/12.09.1927, Lekhpal has wrongly recorded plot 296/2 (area 0.58 acre) in the khata of the respondents although this plot was of kurra of the petitioner. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has no application in present case. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 09.04.2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revisions afresh in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably within four months. Petitioner Allowed.