JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. 2. None present on behalf of respondents. 3. Heard Sri R.S. Pande, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State counsel and perused the record. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 31.10.2007 (Annexure No. 2) passed by respondent No. 2/Chief Revenue Officer, Faizabad and order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad. 5. Facts in brief of the present writ petition are that respondent No. 5/Tidi initiated a proceeding under Section 28 of the L.R. Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before respondent No. 2/Chief Revenue Officer, Faizabd registered as Case No. 82/494/285 (Tidi Vs. Ram Nath and others). In the said matter, a report was called from Chief Treasurer in respect to correction of the boundary of Gata No. 302, area 4 biswa situated at Village Village Purkhepur Pargana Hakedi Awadh, Tehsil & District - Faizabad. 6. On 22.03.2007, Chief Treasurer submitted his report. Taking into consideration the same and other material on record, respondent No. 2 by means of order dated 31.10.2007 has allowed the case under Section 28 of the L.R. Act. 7. Order dated 31.10.2007 passed by respondent No. 2 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a Revision No. 1526/(2007-08)/Faizabad (Ram Nath and others Vs. Tidi and others) under Section 219 of the Act and the same was dismissed by an order dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Faizabad Division, Faizabad. 8. Sri R.S. Pande, learned counsel for petitioners while challenging the impugned order raised the argument which are summarized as under: - (A) Copy of the report of Chief Treasurer has not been given to him. (B) Respondent No. 2/Chief Revenue Officer, Faizabad has not given an oral hearing and only on the basis of objection filed by the petitioner in the matter in question has passed the order dated 31.10.2007 (C) That in the matter in question a Civil Suit (Regular Suit No. 179 of 2009) is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Faizabad in which an order dated 03.03.2009 has been passed thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo. 9. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned orders dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure No. 1) and 31.10.2007 passed by respondent Nos. Div.), Faizabad in which an order dated 03.03.2009 has been passed thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo. 9. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned orders dated 18.08.2010 (Annexure No. 1) and 31.10.2007 passed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are liable to be set aside. 10. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. 11. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for petitioners that the copy of the report of Chief Treasurer dated 22.03.2007 has not been supplied to him, in this regard there is neither any pleading in the writ petition nor in the revision before respondent No. 2, so without any pleading, the said argument cannot be taken into consideration. 12. Even otherwise, the argument in question has got no force because from the perusal of the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by respondent No. 2, the position which emerged out is that the petitioner has filed objections to the report of the Chief Treasurer, accordingly, the point (A) is decided against the petitioners. 13. So far as the point No. (B), argued by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners have not given any opportunity to put forward his case, thus the order dated 31.10.2007 is in violation of principles of natural justice, is contrary to the material on record because from the perusal of the order dated 31.10.2007the position which emerged out is that the petitioners have filed objections in the matter in question against the report of the Chief Treasurer dated 33.03.2007 and after taking into consideration the said facts as well as the material on record, the order dated 31.10.2007 has been passed in this regard respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have given a concurrent finding of fact. 14. This Court while exercising the power of judicial review can set aside a finding of fact given by the court below if the same is contrary to the facts on record, however, the said position does not exists in the present case. 15. 1 & 2 have given a concurrent finding of fact. 14. This Court while exercising the power of judicial review can set aside a finding of fact given by the court below if the same is contrary to the facts on record, however, the said position does not exists in the present case. 15. 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." 16. 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. 17. 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." 18. 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. 19. So far as the argument No. (C) as raised by learned counsel for petitioner that in the matter in question a Civil Suit 179 of 2009 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Faizabad in which an order dated 03.03.2009 has been passed thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo. 19. So far as the argument No. (C) as raised by learned counsel for petitioner that in the matter in question a Civil Suit 179 of 2009 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Faizabad in which an order dated 03.03.2009 has been passed thereby directing the parties to maintain status quo. The said proceeding has got no relevancy or any legal impediment in the way of the respondent No. 2 to decide an application under Section 28 of the Act and further the orders which are passed in the said section as well as revisional order will not affect in any manner the right and title of the parties which is to be decided and adjudicated in the Civil Suit 179 of 2009. 20. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.