JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Tanu Roopanwal, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for contesting-respondents. 2. The facts, not under dispute are that one Ramdev, son of Shivtahal was sole 'Sirdar' of the land in dispute and has applied for a Bhumidari Sanad and deposited 20 times of rent on 4.6.1968 and on the same day has executed a registered gift deed to Smt Ishra Devi, wife of Ajab Narayan i.e. the petitioner herein. 3. It appears that later on a Bhumidhari Sanad was issued to Ramdev. 4. Case of the petitioner was that his wife Smt Ishra Devi lived along with him happily, but unfortunately died on 21.10.1974, leaving behind her husband i.e. the petitioner as her sole heir and legal representative. However, this fact has been disputed by respondent no.5, who claims herself to be Smt Ishra Devi, wife of the petitioner that she is alive and due to dispute with her husband, she is still staying along with one Ram Nath and have children also. 5. The petitioner was in jail for sometime due to a criminal case, wherein later on he was acquitted in trial. Meanwhile, Bhumidhari Sanad issued to Ramdev was challenged by one Prithavi Pal, respondent no.6 and his name was got recorded over the land in dispute, though apparently without any specific order. 6. The proceedings under Section 134 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 travelled up to the Board of Revenue which ultimately abated since village concerned was brought under consolidation operations and undisputedly in the Khatauni of basic year, name of Smt Ishra Devi, wife of petitioner was recorded as tenure holder. 7. During consolidation proceedings, petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of, 1953") inter-alia on the ground that since his wife Smt Ishra Devi expired on 1.10.1974 and he being her sole legal heir, therefore, his name be substituted in her place. 8. In the consolidation proceedings, statement of respondent no.5, Smt. Ishra Devi (alleged to be an impostor by the petitioner) was recorded. 9. 8. In the consolidation proceedings, statement of respondent no.5, Smt. Ishra Devi (alleged to be an impostor by the petitioner) was recorded. 9. The petitioner in order to substantiate his claim has filed about 21 documents and details thereof are referred in paragraph 12 of present writ petition as well as petitioner has examined himself and Chotte Lal, son of Ramjiyawan, whereas respondents have filed affidavits of witnesses. 10. The issue as to whether affidavits could be accepted without cross-examination of the deponent has travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition No.15115 of 2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.7.2017, wherein it was observed that in case affidavits are sought to be relied upon, the petitioner would be afforded opportunity to cross-examine respective deponent of said affidavits. 11. The Consolidation Officer, after considering objection and material available on records, has rejected objections filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.12.2018. 11. The Consolidation Officer, after considering objection and material available on records, has rejected objections filed by the petitioner vide order dated 6.12.2018. Relevant findings thereof are mentioned hereinafter: ^^eq0 bljk nsoh ds }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa ds lkFk muds c;ku rFkk ftjg dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA lE;d ijh{kksijkUr ik;k x;k fd bljk nsoh i<+h fy[kh tkx:d efgyk jgh rFkk vius i{k esa fgokukek fy[ks tkus ds lkFk gh vius vf/kdkjksa ds izfr ltx jghA muds }kjk Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd jkenso muds firk ds cqvk ds yMds FksA jkenso }kjk bljk nsoh dk fookg vtc ukjk;u ls djk;k x;k FkkA fgckukek fy[ks tkus ds i'pkr muds }kjk 06-07-1968 dks vtc ukjk;.k ds pkpk jkefugksj lqr [kqu[kqu ds i{k esa cSukek fd;k x;kA blls ;g vkHkkl gksrk gS fd bljk nsoh dh fgckukek ls ij vtc ukjk;u ds ifjokj }kjk dksbZ dk;Z;kstuk dh xbZA bljk nsoh }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k fd lu 73 esa tehu ds fookn dks ysdj vtc ukjk;u ls muds lEcU/kksa esa fookn iSnk gqvk ;k dkykUrj esa ;g jkeukFk ds lkFk xzke txkiqj esa jgus yxhA muds }kjk dbZ eq[rkjukes fy[ks x;s rFkk fujLr djk;s x;s bls bl rjg le>k tk ldrk gS fd Hkwfe xzke rjngk eas fLFkr jgh rFkk muds }kjk xzke txkiqj esa jgdj mldk izcU/ku fd;k x;k tks fd ,d efgyk gksus ds dkj.k oknuh ds fy, ,d pqukSrhiw.kZ dk;Z jgk gksxkA bl izdkj lk{;ksa o rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkrk gS fd Jherh bljk nsoh iRuh vtc ukjk;u thfor gS rFkk [kkrk la[;k 76 o 71 dh Hkwfe/kj gSA pwafd vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la0 73 ij budk uke ntZ gS rFkk [kkrk la[;k 71 ij i`Fohiky dk uke ntZ gSA vr% [kkrk la[;k 71 ij ntZ i`Fohiky lwr lgnso uke fujLr gksdj Jherh bljk nsoh iRuh vt; ukjk;u dk uke crkSj Hkwfeij ntZ fd;k tkuk P;k;ksfpr gksxkA rnuqlkj ,d lkFk lHkh okn fcUnq tks fnukad 12-01-1977 ,oa vfrfjDr ckn fcUnq fnukad 23-05-1977 mijksDr foospuk ds vuqlkj fufeZr fd;s tkrs gSA rnuqlkj lHkh rokts rFkk vkifRr;kWa mi;ksrkuqlkj fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSaA vkns'k [kkrk la[;k 73 ij bldk nsoh iRuh vtc ukjk;u dk uke cnLrwj ntZ jgs rFkk [kkrk la[;k 61 ls ntZ [kkrsnkj i`Fohiky lqr lgnso dk uke fujLr gksdj tfj;s iathd`r fgokukek fnukad 04-06-1968 bljk nsoh iRuh vtc ukjk;u dk uke crkSj Hkwfe?kj [kkrsnkj ntZ gksA okn vey njken i=koyh nkf[ky nWQ~rj gksA** (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, which was later on transferred to District-Kaushambi. 13. Aforesaid appeal was rejected by an order dated 13.10.2021 and later on a revision filed thereof was also rejected by order dated 12.5.2022. All the above referred orders are impugned herein. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of his claim has submitted that Smt. Ishra Devi has expired and respondent no.5 was an impostor of Smt. Ishra Devi and in support of this submission he has referred as many as 21 documents, being part of record, but the same were not considered in their correct perspective and all three authorities have committed error on facts as well as on law. 15. Learned Senior Counsel has referred statement of respondent no.5, i.e. Smt. Ishra Devi an alleged impostor that she has accepted her remarriage with one Ram Nath and undisputedly she was not divorced from her husband i.e. the petitioner. 16. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Smt. Ishra Devi (Respondent no.5/ an impostor) was setup by one Shyam Bihari. The claim of respondent no.5 that she was deserted by her husband i.e. the petitioner has no substance as she has 20 bighas of land and in case she was deserted, in normal circumstances she would have gone to her parents house and not to live with another person without being divorced from her husband. 17. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner has referred voter list and family register that his wife Smt. Ishra Devi has died and it was a natural death. However, the documentary evidences were erroneously rejected by all the authorities merely on the ground that he could not file a copy of invitation card of his wife's Tehravi ceremony. In normal circumstances, he was not required to preserve that card if circulated in the year 1974, though normally in villages, people are invited by oral invitations. Learned Senior Counsel also referred the statement of Chottey Lal in order to prove the factum of death of Smt Ishra Devi and that contradictions, if any, in his statements, were immaterial. 18. In normal circumstances, he was not required to preserve that card if circulated in the year 1974, though normally in villages, people are invited by oral invitations. Learned Senior Counsel also referred the statement of Chottey Lal in order to prove the factum of death of Smt Ishra Devi and that contradictions, if any, in his statements, were immaterial. 18. Learned Senior Counsel also urged that delay in filing the objection if any, on behalf of petitioner has a reasonable explanation, since according to him, his wife expired on 21.10.1974 and he remained in jail in a criminal case and came out on bail on 2.8.1976 and immediately thereafter has filed objection, therefore, there was no delay. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that wife of the petitioner, Smt. Ishra Devi is still alive, she was deserted by her husband i.e. the petitioner, therefore, she started living with one Ram Nath and have children from her relationship. The petitioner has failed to prove that his wife Smt. Ishra Devi has died and respondent no.5 was an impostor. All the three authorities have passed orders against the petitioner, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of present case, concurrent findings does not warrant any interference under writ jurisdiction. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred a judgment of this Court passed in Writ No.30944 of 1990, that substitution of petitioner in place of Smt. Ishra Devi before the Board of Revenue does not create any substantial right except that the petitioner has got right of prosecution for disposal of revision petition pending before Board of Revenue. The counsel also referred that Board of Revenue has inquired into the matter, through a subordinate authority i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer Tehsil-Patti District- Pratapgarh, who after conducting an inquiry has found that Smt. Ishra Devi, wife of petitioner is still alive. The finding of High Court as well as of Board of Revenue were sufficient to prove that Smt. Ishra Devi, the respondent no.5, is wife of the petitioner and she is still alive. 21. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 22. The finding of High Court as well as of Board of Revenue were sufficient to prove that Smt. Ishra Devi, the respondent no.5, is wife of the petitioner and she is still alive. 21. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 22. The issue which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether, respondent no.5, Smt. Ishra Devi is the wife of petitioner Ajab Narayan and claim of petitioner that his wife has already expired was correct or not and further respondent no.5 was deserted by petitioner and is still staying with one Ram Nath. 23. Claim of the petitioner mainly rests upon documentary evidence referred in paragraph 12 of the writ petition as well as statement of the petitioner and Chotte Lal, whereas claim of respondent no.5 is mainly based upon her evidence and concurrent finding of all the three authorities as well as observations made by this Court and certain documentary evidence and affidavit of witnesses. 24. First of all this Court proceeds to consider the order passed by Consolidation Officer in order to scrutinize as to whether consideration of rival submissions and documentary evidence was legally correct or not? 25. The Consolidation Officer has returned a specific finding in respect of the claim of petitioner that her wife Smt. Ishra Devi had expired on 21.10.1974 under natural circumstances that he has failed to produce death certificate of her death or any other documentary evidence such as invitation card of her Terahvi. It was further held that no such information was provided by relatives or co-villagers to the authorities when CH Form-4 was prepared. The factum that petitioner was in jail when CH Form 4 was prepared would have no consequence. 26. The Consolidation Officer has also considered the statement of Smt. Ishra Devi/respondent no.5 that petitioner has deserted her as his behaviour was not good towards her since she was physically tortured, and therefore, she has started living with one Ram Nath. The main reason for hostile relationship was dispute in regard to land in question. 27. 26. The Consolidation Officer has also considered the statement of Smt. Ishra Devi/respondent no.5 that petitioner has deserted her as his behaviour was not good towards her since she was physically tortured, and therefore, she has started living with one Ram Nath. The main reason for hostile relationship was dispute in regard to land in question. 27. The Consolidation Officer has also considered that Smt Ishra Devi has executed a Bainama on 6.7.1968 in favour of Ram Nohre, Uncle of petitioner and her name was registered in the family register and there were various litigations between the petitioner and other parties including her wife, therefore, Consolidation Officer has returned a specific finding that petitioner has neither able to prove that Smt. Ishra Devi has expired nor able to prove that respondent no.5 was an impostor. Later on, Consolidation Officer has returned a finding that Bainama was legally valid and accordingly passed the order in favour of respondent no.5. 28. Now, the Court proceeds to consider the order passed by Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has re-appreciated the evidence both oral and documentary and returned a specific finding that petitioner has filed only a photo copy of Birth and Death Register, which could not be admissible as evidence, whereas Smt. Ishra Devi has submitted certified copies of family register that she is still alive and that she is not an impostor. The Appellate Court further returned a finding that in the appeal filed by Prithvi Pal, Smt Ishra Devi was arrayed as a party being wife of Ajab Narayan, the petitioner and that no reliance could be placed on voter list, since 'deceased' was not a term used in the voter list. It was also reiterated that during preparation of CH Form 4, none has informed that Smt. Ishra Devi has expired. 29. Appellate Court has also returned a finding that for the sake of argument, if it was accepted that Smt. Ishra Devi has married with another person, however it would not be a ground that she has no right over the property in dispute executed in her favour by a registered document. Appellate Court has also taken note of the contradiction in the statement of Chotte Lal and the petitioner recorded before the Consolidation Officer. 30. Appellate Court has also taken note of the contradiction in the statement of Chotte Lal and the petitioner recorded before the Consolidation Officer. 30. The revisional court has reconsidered the finding returned by Consolidation Officer and Appellate Court and that since no substantial argument was raised to contradict those finding, the revision petition was dismissed. 31. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has substantially reiterated arguments raised before all the three authorities which were dealt by the authorities in detail and specific findings were returned against the petitioner. Those findings are writ large and the Senoir Counsel for petitioner has an uphill task to show that concurrent findings are perverse or without jurisdiction or contrary to law, which may warrant interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 32. The petitioner has failed to prove that his wife died in the year 1974 since no admissible evidence was brought on record, in form of a certified copy of her death certificate or a certified copy of birth and death register. His close relatives and co-villagers have not informed the concerned authority about death of Smt Ishra Devi, during inspection and inquiry for preparation of CH Form-4, which is a strong factor against the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to discharge burden to prove that his wife has died. Various documents were placed on record by the petitioner, however, they remained insufficient to substantiate his claim. 33. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 remained successful to reiterate that the respondent no.5 is the wife of petitioner and is still alive. She has participated in the same status in various proceedings initiated by the petitioner and other persons also. She was cross-examined at length but she was able to sustain and affirmed that she is the wife of petitioner and is still alive and staying with one Ram Nath. 34. Statement of Smt. Ishra Devi, respondent no.5 is part of this writ petition. She has narrated about litigations and reason of desertion as well as reasons to stay with one Ram Nath. She has Ikrarnamas which were later on withdrawn. Statement of Smt. Ishra Devi was very specific and has categorically replied during her cross-examination which cannot be ignored. 35. Statement of Smt. Ishra Devi, respondent no.5 is part of this writ petition. She has narrated about litigations and reason of desertion as well as reasons to stay with one Ram Nath. She has Ikrarnamas which were later on withdrawn. Statement of Smt. Ishra Devi was very specific and has categorically replied during her cross-examination which cannot be ignored. 35. As referred above, all the three authorities have passed detailed and reasoned orders and petitioner has failed to point out any perversity therein and as held in Krishna Nand (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors, (2015) 1 SCC 553 , that concurrent findings could be disturbed under writ jurisdiction only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction. Relevant paras 12 and 13 of Krishna Nand (supra) are reproduced hereinafter: "12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for re-appreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity. 13. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High Court has nowhere stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances." (Emphasis supplied) 36. The High Court has nowhere stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances." (Emphasis supplied) 36. Outcome of above discussion is that the Court is of considered opinion that since all the three authorities have passed reasoned and well considered orders after taking note of rival submissions, oral as well as documentary evidence on record and petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity, illegality or even irregularity in the impugned orders, therefore, no circumstance exists which warrants interference with impugned orders by the Court under writ jurisdiction. 37. Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.