JUDGMENT : RAJIV JOSHI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 05.08.2017, 11.10.2007 and 24.04.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer respectively. 3. The fact as apparent from the record that during consolidation operation, 11 biswas of land was found excess in Gata No. 449. The Assistant Consolidation Officer distributed the excess land amongst all the co-sharers. Subsequently, Hanif, respondent no.2 filed objection under Section 9A (2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on the ground that the said excess land should be of his gatas and that has wrongly been distributed amongst the co-sharers. The objection filed by the respondent no.2 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.1.1991. Against that order petitioner filed appeal, which was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh vide order dated 31.8.1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 6.10.1995, the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Hanif, respondent no.2 and distributed the excess land amongst the co-sharers. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Hanif filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was allowed and matter was again remanded to the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 19.1.1998. Subsequently, as per the remand order, the Consolidation Officer proceeded with the case and decided the objection in favour of respondent no.2 vide order dated 24.03.2003 with the finding that petitioner and other co-sharers already had excess land in their chaks and the excess land of 11 biswa belongs to Hanif, respondent no.2. Against that order, petitioner filed an appeal, which too was dismissed affirming finding as recorded by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.10.2007. The said order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was affirmed by the revisional authority vide order dated 5.8.2017, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that excess land of 11 bigha should be distributed amongst all the co-sharers as distributed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, but all the consolidation authorities have committed illegality while not doing so. 6. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that excess land of 11 bigha should be distributed amongst all the co-sharers as distributed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, but all the consolidation authorities have committed illegality while not doing so. 6. On the other hand, Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 supported the judgment of all the consolidation authorities and submitted that petitioner and their co-sharers already having excess land and there is no justification from distribution amongst the petitioner and the other co-sharers, the land belongs to Hanif, respondent no.2 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The specific finding has been recorded by all the consolidation authorities that the petitioner and other co-sharers are having the excess land and the land of 11 bighas is the excess land of the respondent no.2. The finding recorded by all the consolidation authorities are finding of fact, which is beyond the scope of any interference under the writ jurisdiction. No illegality or infirmity has been committed by all the consolidation authorities while passing the impugned orders. 9. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.