JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Gupta, for respondent-2. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 13.07.2016, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of land of basic consolidation year khata 1187 [consisting plots 3848 (area 2-14-0 bigha) (wrongly recorded as plot 3648 (area 1.17 acre) and 10395 (area 3-13-0 bigha)] of village Mataudh, pargana and district Banda, which was recorded in the names of Rajwa son of Alhawa, Jeewan and Rajaram sons of Ganesa. 4. There were several objections in respect of land of aforesaid khata. For the purposes of this writ petition, relevant objections were (i) the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for recording his name over 1/2 share of plots 3848 and 10395 on the basis of sale deed dated 03.05.1983, allegedly executed by Jeewan and Rajaram sons of Ganesa in his favour and deleting names transferers as well as deleting entry of column-9 of the name of Harinam Singh from plot 3848 and correcting it as plot 3848 in place of 3648. (ii) Recorded tenure holders filed an objection for correction of plot number 3648 as 3848. Jeewan and Rajaram filed counter objection to the objection of the petitioner and denied execution of the sale deed dated 03.05.1983. (iii) Mangal Singh (respondent-2) filed an objection under Section 12 of the Act, claiming 1/2 share of Jeewan and Rajaram on the basis of sale deed dated 20.05.2003, executed by them in his favour and also filed counter objection to the objection of the petitioner. 5. Consolidation Officer framed necessary issues. The petitioner filed sale deed dated 03.05.1983 and revenue receipt dated 05.09.1989 and examined Basudeo son of Ram Nath Dwivedi, marginal witness of the sale deed. Mangal Singh filed registered sale deeds dated 20.05.2003, executed by Jeewan and Rajaram sons of Ganesa in his favour and examined both the marginal witnesses of sale deed. Rajaram also in his statement, admitted execution of the sale deed dated 20.05.2003. Mangal Singh filed registered sale deeds dated 20.05.2003, executed by Jeewan and Rajaram sons of Ganesa in his favour and examined both the marginal witnesses of sale deed. Rajaram also in his statement, admitted execution of the sale deed dated 20.05.2003. Consolidation Officer by order dated 25.07.2005, held that in khatauni 1384 F-1389 F, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Alhawa son of Bharosa, which contained a mutation entry of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 26.02.1981, recording names of Rajwa son of Alhawa, Jeewan and Rajaram (minor aged about 12 years, under the guardianship of Jeewan) sons of Ganesa. In subsequent years, due to mistake of Lekhpal, plot 3648 (area 2-14-0 bigha) was mentioned in place of 3848, although plot 3648 belonged to Tantia son of Bhaunia and in his khata 365/2 plot 3648 (area 3-12-0 bigha) was recorded. During pendency of litigation, Jeewan and Rajaram executed sale deeds dated 20.05.2003 of their chaks in favour of Mangal Singh and thus committed criminal offence. These sale deeds are voidable. Rajaram gave his affidavit dated 07.07.2005, admitting execution of sale deed dated 03.05.1983 in favour of the petitioner of his share in the land in dispute, payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession over it. He also stated that Mangal Singh had obtained sale deed dated 20.05.2003, by committing fraud. As such sale deed dated 03.05.1983 is a valid document. On these findings, he allowed objection of the petitioner, recorded his name over the land in dispute and corrected plot 3848 in place of 3648. 6. Mangal Singh filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 231) from aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 06.07.2006 affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. Mangal Singh filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 167) against aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 13.07.2016 held that affidavit dated 07.07.2005, allegedly filed by Rajaram was not filed by himself in the court. In contrary to it, he was examined in the court on 07.10.2004 and denied execution of sale deed dated 03.05.1983 and admitted execution of sale deed dated 20.05.2003. In his statement, Rajaram has stated his age about 36 years. The name of Rajaram was mutated on the basis of report under PA-11, at serial no. In contrary to it, he was examined in the court on 07.10.2004 and denied execution of sale deed dated 03.05.1983 and admitted execution of sale deed dated 20.05.2003. In his statement, Rajaram has stated his age about 36 years. The name of Rajaram was mutated on the basis of report under PA-11, at serial no. 3 dated 26.02.1981, in which his age was recorded as 12 years. At the time of sale dated 03.05.1983, his age was about 14 years and he was not eligible for selling immovable property under Section 7 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as such sale deed dated 03.05.1983 is void. Due execution of sale deed dated 20.05.2003 was proved by marginal witnesses and also admitted by Rajaram. On these findings, he allowed the revision and recorded the name of the petitioner over an area of 1-11-15 bigha of plots 3848 and 10395 and Mangal Singh over an area of 1-11-15 bigha of plots 3848 and 10395, and maintained remaining part of order of Consolidation Officer. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rajaram is claiming himself to be an illiterate man. His statement in respect of his age and mutation order dated 26.02.1981, mentioning his age as 12 years are inconsequential, very shallow piece of evidence and cannot be treated as conclusive evidence in respect of age of Rajaram. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dealt with this issue very casually. It is very trite law that age of a person is determined on the basis of High School Certificate and in absence of it, a scientific/medical report could have been obtained. Concurrent findings of facts relating to due execution of sale deed dated 03.05.1981, based on evidence on record has been illegally reversed casually. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Nausida Vs. State of U.P., decided on 23.02.2007, in which it has been held that normally age of a person is verified from school certificate or from an authentic document. If those are not available or one is illiterate, it would be proper for the court to sent the petitioner to medical expert for the purposes of determination of his age scientifically. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. If those are not available or one is illiterate, it would be proper for the court to sent the petitioner to medical expert for the purposes of determination of his age scientifically. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined record. The name of Rajaram was mutated on the basis of report under PA-11, at serial no. 3 dated 26.02.1981, in which his age was recorded as 12 years. This order was passed in discharge of duties under Section 33-A of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Lekhpal is public servant. He used to visit the village at least two times in a year. Report relating succession under PA-11 is being made after due inquiry in the village as well as from chairman of Land Management Committee. This entry is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Entry in respect of age of Rajaram was corroborated with his oral statement. The findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect cannot be said to be based upon inadmissible evidence or on no evidence. 9. So far as best evidence rule is concerned, the petitioner has never challenged these evidence or filed any other evidence in rebuttal of it. He never demanded, obtaining medical/scientific report in respect of age of Rajaram. In the absence of any other contrary evidence on record, Deputy Director of Consolidation, relied upon mutation entry and statement of Rajaram and recorded findings of fact that Rajaram was minor on the date of sale deed dated 03.05.1983 as such sale deed was void. Rajaram was incompetent to enter into contract under Section 11 of Contract Act, 1872 and was not eligible to transfer immovable property under Section 7 of transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232 , State of A.P. Vs. Hanumantha Rao, (2003) 10 SCC 121 and Dalvinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , held that High Court while exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened in writ proceedings. Municipal Council, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , held that High Court while exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. 10. So far as affidavit dated 07.07.2005, allegedly filed by Rajaram is concerned, he was examined in the court on 07.10.2004 and denied execution of sale deed dated 03.05.1983 and admitted execution of sale deed dated 20.05.2003. Supreme Court in Sudha Devi Vs. M.P. Narayanan, AIR 1988 SC 1381 and Ayaqubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , held that an affidavit cannot be read in evidence unless other party is allowed to cross examine the deponent or the Rules permits filing of affidavit. Thus no reliance can be placed upon the affidavit. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.