JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the controversy involved in the present case relates to Khata Nos.75, 89A and 98 situated at Bhogipur Mani, Pargana-Pasgaon, Tehsil-Mohamdi, District-Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. After starting of consolidation proceedings, an objection under Section 9A(2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) in respect of land in question has been filed. 4. On 18.05.2016, Consolidation Officer had passed an order thereby rejecting the case of the petitioner who claims over the land in dispute on the ground that opposite party no.4/Suresh Kumar @ Suresh is nephew (Bhanja) of the recorded tenure-holder, challenged by the petitioner as well as Bramha Prasad by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, dismissed by order dated 15.01.2010. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner as well as Bramha Prasad filed Revision Nos.476 of 2010 and 478 of 2010, heard together and dismissed by order dated 24.06.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur. 6. Now by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri in Revision No.478 of 2010 as well as orders dated 15.10.2010 passed by SOC in appeal and 18.05.2006 passed by C.O. in Case No.97/2029 under Section 9A(2) of U. P. C. H. Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that orders under challenge in the present writ petition are contrary to the facts on record. 8. In order to elaborate the said argument, he submitted that the court below has failed to take into consideration the order passed in a proceeding under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act in which it has been held that petitioner is a nephew of the recorded tenure-holder, so the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 10. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, it has been held that petitioner is nephew and shall succeed the land after the death of the recorded tenure-holder. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 10. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, it has been held that petitioner is nephew and shall succeed the land after the death of the recorded tenure-holder. So he will succeed the land in question has got no force as the said suit has been decreed and thereafter, appeal has been abated due to consolidation proceedings started in the village, as such, there is no final adjudication of the dispute involved under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act and lis between the parties has not been finally decided, thereafter, the same has been adjudicated by the Consolidation Courts in the proceedings under Sections 9,11 and 48 of U. P. C. H. Act by the Consolidation Courts and a concurrent finding of fact has been given by the courts below that opposite party no.4/Suresh has succeeded the land in question by virtue of son of recorded tenure-holder, the same is based on the material on record. So, I don't find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 24.06.2015 as well as 18.05.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri and Consolidation Officer as the same are based on the facts and material on record and there is no justification or reason to interfere in the same while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as held in the case of Syed Yakoob versus K.S. Radhakrishnan & others ( 1964(5) SCR 64 ) the Supreme Court has held as follows: "finding of fact cannot be challenged in a proceeding on the ground that the relevant and material evidence was in sufficient to sustain the finding and that adequate or sufficiency of evidence or an inference of fact to be drawn from the evidence or finding of fact are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal." 11. In the case of State of West Bengal versus A.K. Shaw ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Supreme Court has observed that of quasi judicial Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding on the High Court. In the case of State of West Bengal versus A.K. Shaw ( AIR 1990 SC 2205 ), the Supreme Court has observed that of quasi judicial Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding on the High Court. By the process of Judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact. 12. In the case of Dharamraj and others versus Chhitan and others 2007(102) RD 73, the Supreme Court has observed that: "It is now well settled law that in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction High Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation authorities unless and until High Court concludes that such findings of fact are either perverse or based on no evidence." 13. This Court in the case of Bano versus State of U.P. Through Collector, Bulandshar & others 2008 (105) RD 645 has held that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director Consolidation is a finding of fact, and cannot call for any interference unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or based on no material. 14. It is a well settled principle of law that while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can set aside the finding of the courts below when the same are contrary to records and perverse in nature. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.