JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Triveni Shankar, for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 31.08.1981, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.10.1981 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 01.08.2016, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute related to inheritance of the land of Ram Bahal Singh son of Sahdev Singh, recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 1, 8, 36, 83 and 103 of village Ram Nagar, pargana Garhwara, district Jaunpur, which was recorded in the names of Ganga Singh, Chandrabali Singh, Indrabali Singh and Ram Bahal Singh sons of Sahdev Singh (who jointly had 1/3 share), with other co-sharers. Assistant Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 26.08.1978 directed for deleting the name of Ram Bahal Singh, holding that his brothers were his heirs. 4. The petitioners filed objections under Section 9 of the Act, on 27.08.1979, claiming themselves to be sons and heirs of Ram Bahal Singh. The brothers and brother's son of Ram Bahal Singh (now represented by respondents-4 and 5) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) contested the objection and stated that Ram Bahal Singh died unmarried. The petitioners were fake persons and were set up by Shyam Narain son of Ram Dawar, with whom they had enmity. 5 Before Consolidation Officer, the petitioners apart from documentary evidence, examined Smt. Shanti Rani (alleging herself to be widow of Ram Bahal Singh) and Shyam Narain. The respondents, apart from documentary evidence examined Bhagwant Singh (Pradhan of the village), Indrajeet son of Mata Dayal, Ramjeet Singh and Indrabali Singh (the respondent). Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, by order dated 31.08.1981, held that burden of proof was upon the petitioners to prove that Ram Bahal Singh married to Smt. Shanti Rani and they were sons of Ram Bahal Singh. According to statement of Smt. Shanti Rani, Ram Bahal Singh married her in Ludhiyana about 30 years ago, where Ram Bahal Singh was doing service and marriage ceremonies were performed there. The petitioners were also born in Ludhiyana and Ram Bahal Singh died in the age of 40 years. In cross examination, she stated that at the time of marriage, Ram Bahal Singh was aged about 10-11 years and she was aged about 7-8 years. The petitioners were also born in Ludhiyana and Ram Bahal Singh died in the age of 40 years. In cross examination, she stated that at the time of marriage, Ram Bahal Singh was aged about 10-11 years and she was aged about 7-8 years. Ram Bahal Singh went to Ludhiyana in the age of 12 years, where he was engaged in service and later on started scrap business. Her father was also in scrap business. Shyam Narain, the witness of the petitioners stated that he had not participated in marriage of Ram Bahal Singh. He never went to Ludhiyana. He had only heard that Ram Bahal Singh was living in Ludhiyana. According to the respondents, Shyam Narain was giving false statement due to enmity between the parties, in proof of which they had filed papers relating to litigation with the father of Shyam Narain. In Voter List and Pariwar Register of Ram Bahal Singh of village Ram Nagar, name of Smt. Shanti Rani and her sons were not recorded. The respondents examined independent witnesses, including Pradhan, who had stated that Ram Bahal Singh died unmarried and the petitioners were fake person. Marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani was not proved. The petitioners were not the sons of Ram Bahal Singh. On these findings, objections of the petitioners were dismissed. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 284/607) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 21.10.1981, held that Shyam Narain in his statement could not prove marriage of Smt. Shanti Rani with Ram Bahal Singh. Smt. Shanti Rani has not stated about the rites performed at the time of her marriage. There was material contradiction in her statement in as much as she had stated that Ram Bahal Singh went to Ludhiyana at the age of 12 years and his marriage was solemnized in the age of 10-11 years. She has stated that Ram Bahal Singh died 5 years ago while she had admitted that age of her younger son of 3 years. In Voter List, Pariwar Register of Ram Bahal Singh of village Ram Nagar, name of Smt. Shanti Rani and her sons were not recorded. Marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani was not proved. The petitioners were not the sons of Ram Bahal Singh. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. In Voter List, Pariwar Register of Ram Bahal Singh of village Ram Nagar, name of Smt. Shanti Rani and her sons were not recorded. Marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani was not proved. The petitioners were not the sons of Ram Bahal Singh. On these findings, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (which was later on registered as Revision No. 156 of 2011-12) against the aforesaid orders. Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 01.08.2016 affirmed the findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this petition has been filed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In order to prove marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani, the petitioners examined two witnesses namely Smt. Shanti Rani and Shyam Narain Singh. Consolidation authorities found that statement of Shyam Narain Singh is hearsay and irrelevant. Apart from it, the respondents also filed documents to prove that due to litigation between Ram Dawar Singh with them, Shyam Narain malafide entered the witness box. So far as statement of Smt. Shanti Rani is concerned, she stated that she was living in Punjab. Ram Bahal Singh married her in Ludhiyana about 30 years ago. Family members of Ram Bahal Singh had not participated in marriage. Ram Bahal Singh went to Ludhiyana in the age of 12 years, where he was firstly engaged in service and later on started scrap business. Her father was also in scrap business. At the time of marriage, Ram Bahal Singh was aged about 10-11 years and she was aged about 7-8 years. The petitioners were also born in Ludhiyana. Ram Bahal Singh died at Ludhiyana in the age of 40 years. She admitted that she had three brothers and three sisters. No witness of her family or relation was examined to prove marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani. 8. So far as long living in relation as husband and wife is concerned, from statement of Smt. Shanti Rani, it is proved that she through out lived in Ludhiyana so long as Ram Bahal Singh was alive. She could not file any evidence to prove that she lived with Ram Bahal Singh in his house as his wife. She has denied that she ever caste votes in elections. She could not file any evidence to prove that she lived with Ram Bahal Singh in his house as his wife. She has denied that she ever caste votes in elections. From Voter List and Pariwar Register of Ram Bahal Singh of village Ram Nagar, it was proved that name of Smt. Shanti Rani and her sons were not recorded in the family of Ram Bahal Singh. As such long living in relation as husband and wife is also not proved from any evidence. 9. The respondents examined independent witnesses, including Pradhan of the village, who had stated that Ram Bahal Singh died unmarried and the petitioners were fake person. The consolidation authorities have not committed any mistake in holding that marriage of Ram Bahal Singh with Smt. Shanti Rani was not proved. The petitioners were not the sons of Ram Bahal Singh. It is not liable to be believed that father of a 7-8 years old girl will marry his daughter to a 10-11 years old boy, whose whereabouts is not known and who was himself living as orphan in Ludhiyana city. 10. Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232 , held that in regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice." 11. Again in Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , held that the question about the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. Again in Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 , held that the question about the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the court or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the court exercising it 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 or questioned 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. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercise." 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.