JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Proceedings in present case are arising out of Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act, 1953"). It is not under much dispute that in basic year in regard to plot in question, name of petitioner and some of respondents were recorded as tenure holders. 2. One Santu (party respondent) along with three others (allegedly included the petitioner also) filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights. Objections were rejected by an order dated 21.10.1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer. An appeal thereof was allowed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation by an order dated 05.04.1977 and a revision thereof filed on behalf of petitioner was dismissed on 02.06.1977. The orders dated 05.04.1977 and 02.06.1977 are impugned in this writ petition. 3. Pedigree submitted by petitioner as well as respondents are as follows -: 4. It is admitted case of parties that there is no dispute of half share of Shiv Baran. The only dispute is in regard to remaining half share of Sukhdeo. 5. Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai and Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioner have submitted that Ramdeo died on 29.02.1965, therefore, his share went to his son and since Ramdutt died subsequently on 21.10.1965, therefore, his share has to go to Bhola only and since Santu was not recorded in revenue record, therefore, he would not get any share. 6. They have further submitted that since Sukhdev has two wives and from one wife, Bhola was born and other three sons were born from second wife, therefore, admission on their behalf would not itself be bound on Bhola and his son i.e. petitioner. 7. At this stage, Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh for respondent has submitted that this is an absolutely a new case which was neither argued before consolidation authorities nor any averment in this regard was mentioned in the writ petition. 8. Both learned counsel for petitioner have also referred document annexed along with this writ petition i.e. khatauni of 1334F in order to show that name of Santu was not referred though name of other parties were mentioned. They have also referred statements recorded during consolidation proceedings. They have also referred that petitioner was shown under co-occupancy and name of Santu was not mentioned in this document also. They have also referred statements recorded during consolidation proceedings. They have also referred that petitioner was shown under co-occupancy and name of Santu was not mentioned in this document also. They have also referred a copy of khatauni of 1356F that Devdutt was also known as Sahdev. 9. They have also referred statements recorded during consolidation proceedings. They have also referred that petitioner was shown under co-occupancy and name of Santu was not mentioned in this document also. They have also referred a copy of khatauni of 1356F that Devdutt was also known as Sahdev. 9. Both learned counsel for petitioner have referred the following findings of Consolidation Officer :- ^^vNSoj us fuEu dkxtkr is'k fd;s gS& 1- udy [krkSuh 1334 Q ;g fookfnr xkVks ds lEcU/k esa gh gSA og Nkxqj o dYyw is'kljku f'ko oju Hkksyk okfyx jkenso jkenRr lgnso ukok fyxku is'kjke lq[knso oyh eq0 eknj [kqn 16 xkVs 2&22 ,0 yxku 12 dh gSA orZeku [kkrs esa ;gh xkVs gS igys oVs ekfyd us dqy 2 xkVs 2&73 , yxku 29&06 ntZ gSA 2 & udy lun Hkwfe/kjh foir iq= Nkxqj Hkksyk iq= lq[knso 1@2 va'k gSaA 3 & lun Hkwfe/kkjh ukVs oYn dYyw ds 1@4 va'k dk is'k gSA blij ogl fd;k x;k fd 'ks"k 1@4 va'k y[ku vkfn dk gSA 4 & udy fu.kZ; fnukad 30-09-72 vk v[kor okjk.klh vUMj ls'klu lsDlu 76 tehnkjh vokyh'ku okor xzke oj?khiqj vNSoj iq= Hkksyk cuke y[ku iq= jkenso xzke fgjkeu iqj dk gSA blls izxV gS fd Nsnh y[ku us [kkrk ds foHkktu dk nkok fd;k vNSoj dk 1@12 rFkk lUrw dk 1@12 va'k dgk FkkA vNSoj us ;g vihy fd;k Fkk D;ksafd vnkyr tsvks fu.kZ; fnukad 26-06-71 }kjk nkok Nsnh y[ku dks Lohdkj gqvk FkkA bl fu.kZ; esa Hkh lUrw dks lq[knso dk yMdk ekuk x;k gSA lUrw dk uke ntZ u gksuk dgk gSA og Hkh dgk x;k gS fd lUrw ds gd dks jkenso gh ns[k ldrs FksA dkj.k ;gh izrhr gksrk gS fd jkenso ds iq= gh jke nRr ej pqds Fks nsonRr o lgnso dk uke es ugh fn;k x;k gS blls ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gSa fd os dHkh ej pqds Fks mDr fu.kZ; es lUrw dk nwljk uke dgh nsonRr ugh fy[kk gSA blls izxV gksrk gS fd nsonRr dksbZ ugh Fkk ;k rks igys gh ej pqdk FkkA jkenRr us Hkh jkenso ds iwoZ e`rd gksuk dgk x;k gS blls vNSoj }kjk nsonRr mQZ lgnso fQj jkenRr fQj jkenso ds ejus dk dgk x;k gSA dze lgh izrhr gksrk ejus dh frfFk dk dksbZ izek.k is'k ugh gSaaA mDr fuekZ.k xzke ojFkhiqj dk vfUre izrhr gksrk gS mDr okn esa Nsnh ds c;ku dh udy is'k gSA mlesa Hkh Nsnh us lUrw dk miuke ugh c;ku fd;k vkSj lgnso o nsonRr dk gh vfLrRo c;ku fd;k bu lcls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd lUrw dk nwljk uke nsonRr lgnso ;fn dksbZ Fks rks cgqr igys e`rd gks x;sA jkenRr dk Hkh jkenso ds iwoZ e`rd gks tkuk ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj lUrw dks ojklr dk gd bu e`rdks ds LFkku ij ugh gksxkA fookfnr Hkwfe pwafd lq[knso ds le; dh ugh gS vr% lUrw lg [kkrsnkj ml vk/kkj ij Hkh ugh gS blls lUrw dk LoRo fookfnr [kkrs esa ugh gSA lUrq }kjk blds iwoZ dHkh Hkh viuk nkok u djuk ;g lkfcr djrk gS fd mudk o LoRo gS vkSj u dCt gh gS okn foUnq lUrw ds izfrdwy r; fd;s tkrs gSaA okn fcUnq la[;k 4 Nkxqj ukVs dk 1@4] 1@4 va'k fufoZokn gSA 'ks"k 1@2 esa vNSoj dk 1@4 gS rFkk 1@4 esa y[ku o Nsnh dk fgLlk cjkcj gS okn fcUnq rnuqdwy r; fd;k tkrk gSA** 10. Both learned counsel for petitioner thereafter have referred following part of order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation -: eSaus nksuks i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh og dks lquk vkSj lEcfU/kr i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA lEHkor% fonku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh k ds vkns'k dk ,d gh vk/kkj jgk gS fd ,d eqdnek blds iwoZ xzke ojbZiqj ds ckjs esa pyk Fkk ftlls 30-09-72 dks vfrfjDr dfe'uj egksn; us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k fd lUrw dk dksbZ gd ugh gSA D;ksafd Hkwfe Lo;e vftZr dh gq;h gS 1399 Q dh [krkSuh dk m)j.k nkf[ky gS ftlesa fookfnr Hkwfe f'kooju o lq[knso ds okfjl gSA 1334 Q es [kkrk uEcj 69 ij Nkaxqj o dYyw iq=ku f'koju Hkksyk okfyx o jkenso o jkenRr o lgnso ukckfyx iq= x.k lq[knso ds uke mDr Hkwfe teu 6_1 esa ntZ gSA 1359_70Q esa [kkrk uacj 88 ij foir iq= Nkaxqj dYyw iq= f'kooju Hkksyk o jkenso jkenRr o nsonRr iq= x.k lq[knso ds uke bUnzkt ntZ gSA ;kuh 1334Q es lgnso ds LFkku ij nsonRr vafdr gks x;kA [krkSuh 1362Q ds [kkrk uacj 32 ij 1356 Q ds vuqlkj bUnzkt gSA lUrq iq= lq[knso dk dguk gS fd ;g fdlh dk csVk ugh Fkk fd lq[knso dks lUrw uke dk yMdk Fkk mlds ukckfyfx;r esa ys[kiky us mldk uke 1334Q esa lUrw ds ctk; lgnso ntZ dj fn;kA oksVj fyLVl u 1973 dh udy nkf[ky gS blls Nsnh o y[ku iq=ku jkenso o lUrw iq= lq[knso dk uke ntZ gS lUrw dk dguk gS fd ;g fl) gks tkrk gS fd og bl ifjokj dk lnL; vkSj xkao esa ugh gSA mRrjoknh us Lo;a c;ku esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd lUrw lq[knso dk yMdk gS fdUrw mudk dguk gS fd ;g u gh vftZr Hkwfe gS vkSj lq[knso ds le; dh ugh gSA 1334 dk m)j.k ns[kus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd 1334Q esa ogh O;fDr dk uke teu 6_1 esa gS tks 1356Q es uke ntZ gSA mRrjoknh dk dguk gS fd nsonRr ej x;s gS og dc vkSj dgka esjs bldk dksbZ le; ugh gS vkSj u dksbZ QkSrh nkf[ky gS vr% eSa ;g ekuus dh rS;kj ugh gwWa fd nsonRr ej x;sA lgnso uke dksbZ yMdk Fkk ;g Hkh thfor ugh gS i=koyh ij /kkjk 9 dh ,d vkifRr dh udy nkf[ky gS tks vNSoj foir] y[ku o ukVs ds gLrk{kj ls lkfcr ugh gq;h FkhA bles nsonRr mQZ vUrw iq= lq[knso dk uke gSA esjh jk; esa nsonRr o lUrw ,d gh O;fDr gS nsonRr ejk ugha gSA Hkwfe iSr`d fl) gSA i=koyh ij tks Qksfr;k nkf[ky gS mlls fl) gS fd jkenso fnukad 29-02-65 dks ejsA jkenRr 31-01-65 dks ejsA Hkksyk 20-05-66 dks ejsA vr% fl) gks tkrk gS fd jkenRr ds ojklr jkenso yMds Nsnh vkSj y[ku dks ugh ikosxhA jkenRr dk 1@4 vU'k Fkk mlds vk/ks vU'k ds ekfyd vNSoj iq= Hkksyk vkSj vk/k, ds ekfyd lUrw iq= lq[knso gS tks jkenRr ds lxs HkkbZ gSA gksaxsA vr% ;g dguk fd lUrw dk dksbZ gd fookfnr Hkwfe es ugh gS ;g xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gSA esjs le{k cMh tksj dh ;g ogl dh xbZ fd vfrfjDr dkfe'uj egksn; dk fu.kZ; v0 l 266 lu 1970&71 vNSoj cuke Nsnh vkfn lu 1967 vkj Mh i`"B la[;k 101 dh uthj ds vuqlkj izkxU;k; dk cy j[ksxk eSa bl rdZ dks ekuus dks rS;kj ugh gwWa D;ksafd ge ml eqdnes dh Hkwfe iSr`d iSnk ugh gS ;g Hkwfe iSr`d fl) gS lUrw dk ;fn dksbZ gd u gksrk rks Nsnh vkSj y[ku vius LoRo ds f[kykQ vius nkos dks Lohdkj uk gh djrs esjh jk; esa lUrw o nsonRr ,d gh O;fDr gS fookfnr [kkrs esa nsonRr e`rd ugh gS mudk 3@16 vHkh gS 3@16 vU'k vNSoj dk Nsnh vkSj y[ku dk 2@16 vU'k vkSj 1@4 vU'k foir dk gS vkSj 1@4 vU'k ukVs dk gSA** 11. Thereafter, they have referred relevant part of order of Deputy Director of Consolidation -: ^^fuxjkuh drkZ vNSoj dk dguk gS fd nsonRr nwljs O;fDr Fks tks oQkr dj x, lUrw dk miuke nsonRr ugh gSA nsonRr mQZ lUrw egt eqdens es ijs'kkuh djus ds fy, uke dk btkr fd;k x;k gS ;g mfQZ;r dk fl)kUr blds igys dHkh Hkh ugh ik;k x;kA QjhdSu ds chp dbZ eqdnes okth gqbZA vihy U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; gqvk ftldh udy eqdnes esa nkf[ky gS ftles nsonRr dks lUrw dgh ugh fy[kk gSA ;g Hkh dgk fd vkjkth gjfxt lq[knso dh iSnk dh gqbZ ugh gSA vkSj u gh bls gkfly djus esa ;ksxnku fd;k gSA pwafd vkjkth futkbZ eq'rjdk [kkunku dh dekbZ ls Hkh gkfly ugh dh x;h gS blfy, blls lUrw dk dksbZ okLrk o ljksdkj ugh gS vkSj u mudk dCtk n[ky gS vkSj mudks dksbZ fgLlk ugh gksrk gSA mlus fooU/ku vkSj Hkw LohdkjksfDr dk vk/kkj fy;k gS foi{kh Nsnh o ydu o lkft'k lUrw gS blfy, fuxjkuh drkZ mudh dk;kZokfg;ksa ls ikcUn ugh gSA eSaus nksuks i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh og dks lquk vkSj lEcfU/kr i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu fd;kA fookn [kkrk la0 40 ds okjs esa gS tks fonr iq= Nkaxqj ukVs iq= dYyw vNSoj iq= Hkksyk Nsnh o ydu iq= x.k jkenso lUrw mQZ nsonRr iq= lq[knso ds uke Hkwfe/kjh vafdr FkkA bl ckr dk fookn cuk fd jkenRr o nsonRr ej x, gS lg [kkrsnkj mu ds okfjl oryk, x,A lUrw mQZ nsonRr us vkifRr izLrqr dh fd og thfor gS vkSj bl [kkrs esa 1@2 va'k ukVs o foir dk gS rFkk ofd;k 1@2 va'k esa mudk 3@8 vU'k gS vkSj vNSoj dk 3@8 vU'k rFkk Nsnh o y[ku dk 1@4 vU'k gSA muds }kjk ,d dqjlhukek Hkh nh x;h gS tks lgk;d oUnksoLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds fu.kZ; esa gSA fuxjkuh drkZ us bldk izfrokn fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd lUrw mQZ nsonRr ,d gh O;fDr gSA lq[knso ds yMds Hkksyk jkenso] jkenRr nsonRr vkSj lUrw FksA jkenso o jkenRr ej x, gSA vfHkfyf[kr [kkrsnkj Nsnh o y[ku us lUrw }kjk fn, x, dqjlhukes dks ugh ekukA Nsnh vkSj y[ku us ,d le>kSrk fd;k ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe es lUrw dk dFku lgh gS bl rF; ds ckjs es dks gSa fookn ugh gS foir vkSj ukVs dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa 1@2 vU'k gSA fookn dsoy 'ks"k 1@2 vU'k ds ckjs esa gS tks 'ks"k vfHkfyf[kr [kkrsnkjks ds uke vafdr gS vNSoj dks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us 5@12 vU'k fd;k Fkk vkSj fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us bls ?kVkdj 3@16 vkSj lUrw mQZ nsonRr dks 3@16 vU'k fd;kA Nsnh vkSj y[ku dk vU'k de djds 3@16 fn;kA vc ns[kuk gS fd D;k lUrw mQZ nsonRr vius dFku dks fl) djus es dgka rd lQy jgs gSA lEHkor% pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us xzke ojbZiqj ds lEcU/k esa vfrfjDr dfe'uj }kjk okn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 30-09-72 ij fu.kZ; vk/kkfjr fd;k gSA ftles ;g dgk x;k gS fd lUrw dk dksbZ gd ugh gS D;ksafd Hkwfe rugk gkfly dh x;h ml eqdnes es ekuk x;k gS tc fd fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us fookfnr [kkrk la[;k 40 dh Hkwfe iSr`d ekuk gSA 1309Q dh udy [krkSuh i=koyh ij nkf[ky gS ftles fookfnr Hkwfe f'kooju o lq[knso iq= x.k f'konhgy ds uke vafdr gSA vfHkfyf[kr [kkrsnkj f'kooju o lq[knso ds okfjl gSA 1334Q esa [kkrk uecj 69 ij Nkaxqj o dYyw iq=x.k f'kooju Hkksyk okfyx o jkenso ukckfyx o jkenRr o lgnso ukckfyx iq=x.k lq[knso dk uke teu 6_1 es vafdr gS 1356Q es [kkrk la[;k 88 ij foir iq= Nkaxqj dYyw iq= f'kooju Hkksyk jkenso jkenRr o nsonRr iq= x.k lq[knso ds uke vafdr gSA 1334Q es lgnso ds LFkku ij nsonRr vafdr gks x;k [krkSuh 1362Q esa 1356Q ds gh vuqlkj vadu gSA oksVj fyLV 1973 dh udy i=koyh ij nkf[ky gS ftles Nsnh o ydu iq= x.k jkenso o lUrw iq= lq[knso dk uke vafdr gSA lUrw dk ;g dguk gS fd ;g fl) gks tkrk gS fd og bl ifjokj dk lnL; gS vkSj xkao es gh jgrk gS ;g fdlh dk dsl ugh Fkk fd lq[knso dks lUrw uke dk yMdk FkkA blfy, 1334 Q esa lUrw ds ctk; lgnso vafdr gSA fuxjkuh drkZ dh vksj ls c;ku esa bl ckr dks rlyhe fd;k x;k gS fd lUrq lq[knso dk yMdk gS mudh ubZ vftZr Hkwfe lq[knso ds le; dh ugh gSA 1334Q dh [krkSuh ls ;g Li"V gS fd mUgh O;fDr;ksa dk uke teu 6_1 es vafdr gS tks 1356Q esa vkSj 1362Q esa vafdr gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ dk dguk gS fd nsonRr ej x, gS ijUrq og dgka vkSj dc esjs bldk i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugh gS vkSj u mudh dksbZ QkSrh gh nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA lgnso uke dk dksbZ yMdk Fkk ;g Hkh fl) ugh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugh ekuk tk ldrk fd nsonRr dh e`R;q gks x;h gSA /kkjk 9 d3 ds vUrxZr ,d vkifRr nkf[ky gS tks vNSoj ukVs vkSj y[ku ds gLrk{kj ls nkf[ky gS vkSj mles lUrw mQZ lq[knso dk uke vafdr gS blls Hkh foi{kh lUrw mQZ nsonRr ds dFku es cy feyrk gS bl izdkj ;g fl) gS fd nsonRr dh e`R;q ugh gq;h gS vkSj ;g Hkh fl) gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe iSr`d gSA vihy Lrj ij tks QkSrh nkf[ky dh xbZ gS mlds vuqlkj jkenso dh e`R;q 26-02-65 dks gqbZ jkenRr 21-02-65 dks ejs Hkksyk 20-05-65 dks ejsA blls Hkh fl) gS fd jkenRr dh ojklr jkenso ds yMds Nsnh vkSj y[ku dks ugh feysxhA jkenRr dk dqjlhukek ds vuqlkj 1@4 vU'k Fkk blds vk/ks vU'k ds ekfyd vNSoj iq= Hkksyk gS vkSj vk/ks vU'k ds ekfyd lUrw mQZ nsonRr iq= lq[knso tks jkenRr dk lxk HkkbZ gS gksxkA bl izdkj vNSoj dk ;g dguk fd lUrw mQZ nsonRr dk fookfnr Hkwfe esa dksbZ gd ugh gS ;g lgh ugh gSA tgka rd fo}ku vfrfjDr dfe'uj dk fu.kZ; vihy la[;k 268]1970&71 vNSoj cuke Nsnh dk iz'u gS bl eqdnes es fuxjkuh drkZ dksbZ ykHk ugh mBk ldrk D;ksafd [kkrk 40 tks orZeku eqdnes ls lEcfU/kr gS ;g iSr`d Hkwfe gS tc fd vihy la[;k 268] lu 1970&71 ls lEcfU/kr Hkwfe iSr`d lEifRr gh gSA blds vfrfjDr Nsnh vkSj y[ku us vius fgLls ds f[kykQ lUrw dk nkok Lohdkj fd;k gSA ;fn okLro es lUrw dk dksbZ gd u gksrk rks o ,slk u djrsA ,slh fLFkfr esa eSa ;g ekuus dks rS;kj ugh gS fd lUrw vkSj nsonRr ,d gh O;fDr ugh gSA ;g Hkh ekuus dks rS;kj ugh gwWa fd nsonRr dh e`R;q gks pqdh gSA tgka rd vU'k dk iz'u gSA dqjlhukes ds vuqlkj fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk tks vU'k fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS og lgh gSA eS muds er ls lger gwWaA fuxjkuh oyghu gSA** 12. Both learned counsel for petitioner have submitted that orders impugned i.e. orders passed by Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities were based only on presumption. No finding was returned on pedigree submitted by petitioner as well as respondents. The admission on behalf of sons of second wife of father of petitioner would not be bound on petitioner who born from first wife. 13. Name of Santu as Devdutt @ Santu for the first time introduced at a belated stage. Initially no such plea was taken. The Consolidation Officer has considered the record and returned a correct and well considered finding, however, it was erroneously disturbed by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by Revisional Authority. 14. Per contra, Sri R.C. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rituvendra Singh and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learend counsel for respondents have submitted that the case before Authorities was limited only to two issues, firstly, whether Santu @ Devdutt was one person, and, secondly, the property in question was ancestral property or not? The petitioner cannot extend or create a new case for the first time before this Court. 15. Learned Senior Advocate has referred memo of revision petition in support of above submissions and relevant paragraph 2 and 3 of it are mentioned below -: ^^2- ;g fd lcwr 'kgknr ls Li"V gS fd nsonRr nwljs O;fDr Fks tks oQkr dj x, lUrw dk miuke nsonRr gh gS nsonRr mQZ lUrw egy eqdnes es ijs'kkuh iSnk djus ds fy, uke dk btkn fd;k x;k gS ;g mfQZ;r dk fl)kUr blds igys dHkh Hkh ugh ik;k x;kA QjhdSu ds njE;ku dbZ fdrk eqdnes ckth gqbZ vihy dh vnkyr dk Hkh QSlyk gqvk ftldh udy eqdnes dh Qkby es ekStwn gS ysfdu dgh Hkh nsonRr mQZ lUrw ugh ik;k x;k vnkyr ekrgr dk ;g dguk fd nsonRr vkSj lUrw ,d gh O;fDr gS fcydqy xyr o vlfy;r ds f[kykQ gSA 3- ;g fd vkjkth futkb gjfxt lq[knso dh iSnk dh gqbZ ugha Fkh u rks larw us gh vkjkth futkb dks gkfly djus esa dksbZ ;ksxnku fd;k vkjkth futkb eq'krjQk [kkunku dh dekbZ ls Hkh gkfly ugha dh x;h larw ls vkjkth futkb ls fdlh dks okLrk ljksdkj ugha j[kk vkSj u mudk dCtk n[ky gS vkjkth futkb esa mudk dksbZ fgLlk ugha gksrkA vkjkth futkb ls larw dk fgLlk dk;e djds vnkyr ekrgr us voS/kkfud o lknk ds foijhr dk;Z fd;k gSA** 16. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that an adverse admission would be admissible to all parties. Argument of petitioner that his interest could be different from other brothers since they born from different mothers has no legal basis. 17. Learned Senior Advocate, in order to buttress his arguments, has placed reliance on Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1996 that no circumstances exist to issue a writ of certiorari. 18. In rejoinder, both learned counsel for petitioner have submitted that findings, if are perverse i.e. contrary to records could be interfered by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 19. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 20. As referred above, the Consolidation Officer has framed two issues i.e. whether Santu @ Devdutt was one person? and whether property in question was ancestral or not? 21. The Consolidation Officer has returned a finding that Santu and Devdutt were different persons and Devdutt was also known as Sahdeo and therefore, Santu has no right. However, aforesaid findings were interfered by Appellate Authority that Santu and Devdutt was one person and his father's name was Sukhdeo. Since Devdutt has not died at relevant time, therefore, land in dispute was ancestral property. 22. Similarly, Revisional Authority has rejected the submission that Santu @ Devdutt has no right on land in question. It was also noted that during earlier proceedings, Chhedi and Lakhan have accepted the share of Santu. 23. Above referred concurrent findings could be disturbed only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction. In this regard, relevant paragraphs of judgment of Supreme Court in Krishnanand (dead) through Lrs and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 are quoted below -: "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. 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 no where stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances." 24. Findings returned by Consolidation Officer were interfered by a reasoned order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation which has already been referred in earlier paragraphs which were further upheld by a reasoned order passed by the Revisional Authority. It is also referred in the preceding paragraphs. 25. As discussed above, no substantive arguments were raised or material was brought on record to make out a case to interfere with concurrent findings of two Authorities on the ground being perverse. Both Authorities i.e. Appellate as well as Revisional Authority have considered the case in its entirety and as referred above, on the basis of evidence on record which also includes that Santu @ Devdutt was one person and he was son of Sukhdeo which was also proved by documents on record such as revenue record, voter list and that there was an admission on behalf of respondents in regard to share of Santu @ Devdutt which also binds upon the petitioner and contention that being sons of different mothers, any admission of step brothers would not be binding on him is a legally unsustainable ground, specifically when the admission was contrary to the interest of other brothers. 26. 26. The respective shares were administered on the basis of kursinama which was appropriate and finding referred by the Appellate Authority was upheld by the Revisional Authority by a reasoned order, therefore, in the light of Krishnanand (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with concurrent findings returned by Appellate as well as Revisional Authority and since petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in impugned order, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 27. Writ petition stands dismissed.