JUDGMENT : Rajiv Joshi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.B. Yadav, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 11 to 14. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.7.2018 and 24.4.2006 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Consolidation Officer respectively. 2. It reflects from the record that an application was filed by father of the petitioners under section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act for recording his name on the basis of Rehannama dated 18.5.1973. The said application was allowed vide order dated 26.12.1986. Subsequently, appeal was filed by one Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 11 to 14 on 28.10.1999. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 28.7.2001 and the matter was remanded before the Consolidation Officer for deciding afresh after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. Against that order, revision was filed by the petitioners, which was partly allowed on 30.9.2002 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh. Against that order, Writ B No. 711 of 2003 was filed, which was dismissed. 3. During the pendency of the matter before the Consolidation Officer, an application was filed by Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 11 to 14 for his impleadment on the basis of sale deed, which is alleged to be executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in his favour on 22.9.1999. The said application was allowed vide order dated 24.4.2006 and the Ram Sundar was impleaded as one of the respondents in the case. Against that order, revision was filed by the petitioners, which too was dismissed vide order dated 24.7.2018. 4. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that Ram Sundar, father of respondent Nos. 11 to 14 is not the necessary party and sale deed in his favour is a forged document. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 11 to 14 supported the impugned order by stating that sale deed has been executed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 10, who are the parties in the proceeding and therefore, he is the necessary party. 6. I have considered the rival submission raised by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 11 to 14 supported the impugned order by stating that sale deed has been executed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 10, who are the parties in the proceeding and therefore, he is the necessary party. 6. I have considered the rival submission raised by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The record reveals that earlier order dated 26.12.1986, whereby the name of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue record on the basis of Rehannama dated 18.5.1973, an appeal was filed by Ram Sundar, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The said order was affirmed in the revision. The initial order was challenged by Ram Sundar and sale deed has also been executed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 in his favour and therefore, he has got interest in the litigation. 8. The finding has rightly been recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as the revisional authority to the effect that Ram Sundar is the necessary party in the proceeding. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners in case, he is impleaded as one of the respondents. The finding recorded by both the consolidation authorities are the findings of fact and beyond the scope of any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.