JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Man Bahadur Singh and Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional C.S.C. for State. 2. Facts in brief are that the disputed land are Khata No.94 area 6.47 acres and Khata No.4 area 2.01 acres situated in village-Shittalpur, Pargana-Etah Saket, District-Etah. The said village was brought under consolidation operations, wherein an objection was filed by one of original petitioners under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Act of 1953) that the share of Satya Ram S/o Bhoj Raj (original respondent No.4) in land in dispute was 1/3 and it was wrongly been shown as 1/2 in basic year, which required a correction. 3. According to petitioners pedigree of parties to lis is as follows:- Whereas per contra, the pedigree as given by respondents is as follows :- 4. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the facts, oral and documentary evidence on record vide order dated 16.08.1976, has rejected the objections set up by original respondent No.4 and maintained the basic year entry, holding him to be co-sharers of land in question, only to the extent of 1/3 share. The relevant findings returned by the Consolidation Officer are as follows:- 5. Two appeals were preferred under Section 11 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 against above referred order and both were dismissed by an order dated 23.10.1978 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The relevant findings thereof are as follows:- 6. The original respondent No.4 being aggrieved by above referred orders filed a revision under Section 48 of Act of 1953, which was allowed by impugned order 17.05.1980. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :- 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Revisional Court has erroneously placed heavy reliance on evidence of ‘Panda’ and documents of his Bahi, which was placed on record being document paper No.16/1, 16/2 and 16/3 without being marked as exhibit and as such they were not duly proved. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not set aside the findings returned by the Appellate Court in specific words. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not set aside the findings returned by the Appellate Court in specific words. The Revisional Court has not considered the specific finding returned by the Appellate Court that identity and continuity of land does not remain same and land does not originally belong to ‘Ganga Ram’ as well as no reasoning was assigned in impugned order that how land in question belonged to ‘Ganga Ram’. 9. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has neither accepted the finding in regard to pedigree submitted by petitioners nor given any reason to accept the pedigree given by respondents. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners has read out the reasons given by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation as referred above and has also referred the order passed by Revisional Court that it has interfered with a well reasoned order without considering the factors given in Section 48 of Act of 1953. 11. Learned counsel for contesting respondents have vehemently opposed the above submissions and submitted that oral evidence of ‘Panda’ i.e. Sadashiv, which was a relevant document as it was based on Bahi, was on record. Bahi of Samvat 1973, 1997 and 2022 has disclosed that Bhoj Raj was son of Girwar. It was a material and admissible evidence and no better evidence was available which could contradict it. 12. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on Dukh Haran Tewary And Ors. Vs. Dulhin Bihasa Kuer And Anr. : AIR 1963 Pat 390 . Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of The Collector of Farrukhabad Vs. Gajraj Singh, 15 Ind Cas 625 and the relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter :- “In default of this he has sought for documentary evidence in the books kept by certain Brahmins known as pandas at Soran on the Granges and at the sacred city of Mutfra. These'pandas are priests who receive pilgrims visiting-sacred places for purposes of devotion and assist them in the performance of ceremonies appropriate to the occasion. These'pandas are priests who receive pilgrims visiting-sacred places for purposes of devotion and assist them in the performance of ceremonies appropriate to the occasion. Their livelihood depends on the fees paid them by the pilgrims who thus employ their services, and there is doubt that they are exceedingly jealons of their traditional or prescriptive rights to receive and minister to all pilgrims belonging to any family which has once definitely enrolled itself in their lists of jaimnns or clients. For this purpose, they maintain certain books or registers one of which has been produced before us by the plaintiff's witness. xxx xxx A good deal of trouble seems to be taken to keep the entries reiating to particular villages together or, at any rate, to facilitate reference when entries relating to the same village have got into different parts of the book. There seems, moreover, to be a certain amount of system employed in grouping villages together so as to connect with one another entries relating to different branches of one and the same family residing in different villages The entries themselves consist very largely of pedigrees or fragments of pedigrees sometimes purporting be made by, or at the dictation of, a particular member of the family concerned on the occasion of a visit paid to the Ganges at Soran in a specified year and month, sometimes merely jotted down underneath some other entry, without any specific record either of the occasion or of the particular person on whose authority the entry is made. Of course, the book is not, and does not profess to be, a systematic record of family pedigrees. The pages are not consecutively numbered. It is admitted that the binding is unstitched and fresh pages inserted whenever the panda" finds it convenient to do so. Blank spaces, and even blank pages, occur from time to time in the body of the book. It is admitted that if a page gets very much worn or tittered, the "panda" will copy out what he can decipher of the entries upon it on to a fresh page and will insert the same in its place. It must, also be borne in mind that the "panda" does not hold himself responsible for the identification of pilgrims who appear before him and represent themselves as being members of such and such a family.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. It must, also be borne in mind that the "panda" does not hold himself responsible for the identification of pilgrims who appear before him and represent themselves as being members of such and such a family.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record and written submission provided by counsel for parties. 14. The dispute is between rival pedigree submitted by petitioners and respondents that-Whether Girwar died issueless? If yes, then whether Bhoj Raj is son of Manbhawan or, if not, then whether Bhoj Raj is son of Girwar? and the other issue is whether land was self acquired by Ganga Ram or by Manbhawan and Girwar? 15. Parties have tried to prove their respective pedigree. Respondents’ case are mainly based on the oral evidence of ‘Panda’ and documents produced by him being papers from Bahi, to show pedigree maintained therein. 16. Whereas petitioners’ case mainly rest upon oral evidence of two old persons stating that Girwar never married and died issueless and that Bhoj Raj was son of Manbhawan. 17. The Court has to decide out of above referred evidences, which are more reliable i.e. statement of two old persons from the side of petitioners or statement of ‘Panda’ along with documents from his Bahi, provided from respondents’ side. 18. The details of family members are preserved by Pandas (genealogy priest) which is a very old tradition. They followed a particular manner to maintain details of family genealogy/pedigree. Even from numbers of register they could take out the relevant register/entry, conveniently. It can not be presumed that while preparing record they entered details of pedigree, keeping in mind that in future, it would be a part of legal proceeding and, therefore, entries were made to cause benefit to one party only. The documents are of Samvat 1973, 1997 and 2022 (i.e. of the year 1916, 1940 and 1965), whereas testimony of Panda was recorded in the year 1976 i.e. after 60, 36 and 11 years respectively, therefore, element of making entry with a particular intention is absolutely ruled out as well as there is no contrary material to disbelief that entries made in said documents were not based on information given by members of family correctly. In Dukh Haran Tewary (supra) and The Collector of Farrukhabad (supra), the Patna High Court and this Court respectively, have held that it would be doubtful that they (Pandas) would make wrong entry to support any one member of the family. 19. The next issue for consideration is that whether documents produced by Panda (Paper No.16/1, 16/2, 16/3) were part of genuine Bahi and were duly proved or not. One Sada Shiv Panda has appeared as witness. The author of said entries had not appeared but Sada Shiv Panda who was also a custodian of record appeared and had proved papers referred above. The Consolidation Officer has rejected the evidence that Bahi was neither properly arranged nor name of village was mentioned, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has believed the papers of Bahi to be genuine in absence of any contrary evidence and that there was no reason to disbelieve such evidence. 20. Genealogy priests (Panda) are maintaining and preserving ancestry records from years and in some cases, their records dates back 15 to 20 generations. These records contain crucial information about people’s place of origin, names, births, death, reason of death, place of residence, caste, clan etc. The records are available at many religious centre such as Prayagraj, Nashik, Gaya, Pehowa and in present case at Mathura. Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) has also recognised ancestry records preserved by genealogy priests (Panda). 21. Copy of statements of witnesses are not on record, therefore, Court is proceedings on basis of discussions made by three Court in that regard. (i.e. by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation). 22. The evidence based on ‘Ancestry Record’ cannot be lightly brushed away as it carries an element of genuineness of record and in order to disregard it, there must be a very strong evidence. The doubts put on ancestry record by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation were that the papers were not in serial, name of village was not mentioned etc. but one aspect has skipped from consideration of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, that in the pedigree, names of all family members were mentioned, which are undisputed, except entry in regard to Bhoj Ram, which cannot be an outcome of fraud and, therefore, this piece of evidence cannot be disbelieved or rejected entirely, except when a very strong and reliable contrary evidence is available. 23. 23. In order to contradict above referred evidence, petitioners have examined one Jalim Singh (85 year old) and one Chitter Singh (75 year old) that Girwar was not a married person and he died issueless, however, their evidence was disbelieved by Deputy Director of Consolidation on ground that they had no knowledge how land was devolved upon Manbhawan which appears to be a correct reasoning, since they would have known it in normal course but they miserably failed to disclose source i.e. how and in what manner land had devolved upon Manbhawan. 24. At this juncture, it would be apposite to mention paragraph of Dukh Haran Tewary (supra) wherein while referring to the evidence of Genealogy Priest has observed that :- “6. xxxxx xxxxx The comment of the appellants about non-examination of any witness from Nainijor or absence of any enquiry in that village by the plaintiffs is justified. But there are more dependable documentary evidence in the case which would help a decision on the point. P. W. 1 is a Panda from Mathura. He deposed that Ramgati had gone on pilgrimage to Mathura and was his Jajman. He signed entries in the Jajmanika book of the witness where the names of Ramgati, his father Lila Tewari and his grandfather Narkhu Tewari were written. Those entries were marked as Ext. 1 (e) and the signature of Ramgati as Ext. 2. Several other entries in that book were exhibited to show that other persons from the same village Bachri visited Mathura with Ramgati on that occasion and the names of those persons with the names of their fathers and grand-fathers were written in the book. This Jajmanika book was the subject-matter of a partition suit between P. W. 1 and others and by the decree in that suit, the relevant pages of the book were allotted to the share of P. W. 1. Learned Counsel objected to the admissibility of this book and the entries made therein. Ramgati is dead. This Jajmanika book was the subject-matter of a partition suit between P. W. 1 and others and by the decree in that suit, the relevant pages of the book were allotted to the share of P. W. 1. Learned Counsel objected to the admissibility of this book and the entries made therein. Ramgati is dead. His statement, written or verbal, is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, when that statement was made in the ordinary course of business and in particular when it consisted of an entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business or in the discharge of professional duty or when the statement related to the existence of any relationship between persons as to whose relationship Ramgati had special means of knowledge and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised. Sub-clauses (2) and (5) of Section 32 make such statement admissible and relevant. There is not the slightest reason why P. W. 1 would come to depose falsely or the entries in the Jajmanika book would be fabricated by him to support the plaintiffs. The appearance of the book also inspires confidence. There is no doubt that the entries were made in the usual course and in the discharge of the professional or religious duties of P. W. 1 and Ramgati (sic) P. W. 9 deposed that he went to Mathura with Ramgati and he proved the entries made in the Jajmanika book of P. W. 1.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. The outcome of above discussion is that oral evidence of Genealogy Priest (Panda) supported by documents of his Bahi has more weight in comparison of oral evidence of Jalim Singh and Chitter Singh and there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve evidence of Genealogy Priest (Panda), therefore, Revisional Authority has legally interfered in findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation within the jurisdiction of revision provided under Section 48 of Act of 1953. 26. Therefore, as there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, therefore, writ petition is dismissed. 27. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to note that this Court has decided the present writ petition finally after 43 years. This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution three times, though restored on each occasion. 26. Therefore, as there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders, therefore, writ petition is dismissed. 27. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to note that this Court has decided the present writ petition finally after 43 years. This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution three times, though restored on each occasion. Meanwhile due to death of some of the parties, matter kept pending to bring their legal heirs on record. On few dates petition was adjourned on request of counsel for parties. In four decades, generation changes, but Court has failed to decide this writ petition expeditiously. Role of Advocates is also matter of concern, when they failed to appear or sought adjournment but Court also cannot shun away from its responsibility to decide cases expeditiously in accordance with law. “Justice delayed is justice denied”, a legal maxim which we all have to keep always in mind. No reasons could be assigned to justify the delay occurred in finally deciding the present writ petition after more than four decades. Bar and Bench both have to accept blame for such a huge delay. Both have to work together for better administration of justice so that cases be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law so that situation such in hand may remain as an exception only and not as a routine.