JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. This writ petition is pending before this Court since 1977. 2. Facts of present case are that -: i. The dispute arose during consolidation proceedings regarding three khatas no. 47, 49, and 73 of village Rajanpur, Pargana Bhadaon, Tehsil Rasra, District Ballia. ii. It is not in dispute that in basic year, khata no. 47 was recorded in the names of Jokhan, Sahdeo, Mahadeo, Gangadeen all s/o Ammar, opposite parties no. 1 to 4 and khata no. 49 was recorded in the name of Ram Dhani, Dhanpat s/o Ganga Rai and Marchhu and Parsu, s/o Rampat, opposite parties no. 5 to 8 and khata no. 73 was recorded in the names of Ram Dhani, Dhanpat s/o Ganga Rai and Marchhu and Parsu s/o Rampat. iii. During consolidation proceedings, petitioners have filed their objections mainly on the ground that it was their ancestral land and it was alleged that above referred three khatas were given to them in a family partition which took place on 03.10.1945 as well as that Vasi Ahmad died in the year 1947, therefore, petitioners no. 1 and 2 being his minor sons and petitioner no. 3 being his widow were disabled. The respondents were allowed to use land in dispute for agricultural purpose only and that after U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "Act of 1950") came into force, respondents could have accrued right of asaami only and not more and due to disability, petitioners have right to object the possession of respondents. iv. Objections were opposed by respondents mainly on ground that no partition took place. Respondents were kastkar of jamindar who had never objected their possession and by virtue of proclamation of Act of 1950, they became adhivasi and thereafter sirdar. 3. The Consolidation Officer has framed following issues -: ^^1 & D;k Jherh rbZeqfulk csok olh vgen csok gS rFkk fML,cYM gS 2 & D;k edlwn vgen egewn vgen iq= olh vgen ukckfyx FksA D;k ;g fML,cYM FksA 3 & D;k oknh x.k vkjkth futkbZ ds Hkwfe/kj gS vkSj gS rks mldk vlj\ 4 & D;k xkVk ua0 309 ckx gSA 5 & D;k izfroknh x.k dCtk eq[kkyQkuk dh fcuk ij lhjnkj gks x;s gSA** 4. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 11.05.1973 has returned findings on above referred issues and held that petitioners were disabled and respondents were only taking care of land in dispute and could only be declared asaami and not sirdar. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 11.05.1973 has returned findings on above referred issues and held that petitioners were disabled and respondents were only taking care of land in dispute and could only be declared asaami and not sirdar. Relevant findings on issues are quoted below -: ^^bZlw ua0 1 & Jherh r;oqy fulk oknh ds 'kkSgj Jh olh vgen 1949 esa QkSr gks x;s Fks vkSj blds f[kykQ izfroknh x.k us uk dqN dgk gS uk bldh rjnhn dh gSA blfy;s ,d okr iw.kZr% lkfcr gS fd 1949 esa Jh erh rgcqy fulk csok gks xbZ FkhA bZlw ua0 2 & Jh edlwn vgen dh rkjh[k iSnkb'k 02-09-1948 fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA rFkk egewn vgen dh rkjh[k iSnkbZ'k 02-08-1948 fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA vkSj bldks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lfVZfQdsV ;qukuh frY;k dkyst bykgkckn rFkk Vh0lh0 ds fdl Ldwy ft-lkju dk fn[kk;k x;k gSA bl xzke esa /kkjk 4 dk iz[;kiu 1965 esa gqvk gSA vkSj budh vk;q 17 o 16 lky dh gksrh gSA blfy;s ;g Hkh lkfcr gSA fd Jh edlwn vgen o egewn vgen pdcUnh 'kq: gksus ds lkFk rd ukckfyx Fks vkSj mlds f[kykQ Hkh dksbZ rjnhn ;k dksbZ lcwr bl ckr dks xyr lkfcr djus ds fy;s izfroknh x.k dh rjQ ls ugh fn;k x;k gS blfy;s ;g ckr lkfcr gS fd edlwn vgen o egewn vgen ukckfyx Fks rudhg blh izdkj rS dh xbZA bZlw ua0 4 & xkVk 309 [krkSuh 1359 Q0 esa ckx ntZ gSA vkSj ;g ckr QjhdSu dks rlyhe Hkh gS fd ;g Hkwfe ckx gSA dksbZ Qjhd ;g ugh dg jgk gS fd ;g xkVk 309 ckx ugh gS vr% xkVk 309 ckx gS rudhg blh izdkj r; dh xbZA bZlw ua0 5 & 3 ,aM 5 vkifRr dks f[kykQ c;ku rgjhjh dsoy tks[ku] cPpu] jke/kuh] us fn;k gS vU; fdlh [kkrsnkj ds dksbZ gLrk{kj c;ku rgjhj ij ugh gSA vxj mudks dUVsLV djuk Fkk rks C;ku rgjhjh vo'; gh nsuk pkfg;s FkkA fookfnr Hkwfe 1359 Q0 rd ifgys Hkh 'kkg eqgEen vgen ds uke ntZ FkhA rFkk bl eqLrjdk [kkrs dh rdlhe [kkrsnkjku ds chp esa gks pqdh Fkh vkSj nwljh rdlhe ds fglkc ls f'kdeh ¼vklkeh½ Hkh okj dj fn;s Fks vkSj [krkSuh 1359 Q0 eas gh blh izdkj vklke;ku ds lkFk vly [kkrsnkj tkQj vgen vkfn ntZ Hkh gks x;s FksA bl ckr dk foLr`r fooj.k Jh eku oUnksoLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh ds vkns'k vihy ua0 55 rk 60] vkfn equQlyk 07-08-72 esa fn;k gqvk gSA bl izdkj ;g lkfcr gS fd Hkwfe fookfnr eq'krjdk [kkunku dh uk jgdj oknh x.k tkQj vgen vkfn dh jg xbZ Fkh vkj0Mh0 1964 lQk 51 ij Hkh fn;k gqvk gS lg[kkrSnkjku ds chp vklkeh rdlhe Hkh gks ldrh gSA vkSj ;g lkfcr dj nh tk;s rks iw.kZ rFkk ekuus ds dkfcy gksxhA dCts dk fookn /kkjk 145¼fdz0ih0lh0½ esa py jgk gS blfy;s ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izfroknh crkSj dCtk eq[kkyikuk ds dkfcy gh gSA ;g ckr Hkh lkfcr dh tk pqdh gS fd Jherh rgoqfélk csok Fkh blfy;s fMl,oy Fkh vkSj mudks viuh [ksrh vklke;ku ds djkus dk gd Fkk rFkk edlwn vgen o egewn vgen ukckfyx Fks vkSj mudh Hkwfe/kj Hkh vklkeh lhjnkj ugh gks ldrs FksA bl izdkj tks izfroknhx.k gS og vklkeh gksus pkfg;s ;g lhjnkj xyr izdkj lkfcr gS vkSj ;g Hkwfe edlwn vgen vkfn dh Hkwfeoknh dh gS rudhg blh izdkj r; dh xbZA vkns'k gqvk fd [kkrk 47 ds xkVk 304@1160@1] 140] 141] 165@1] 157] 291@1] 160@3] 161@2] 301@1 ls uke lgnso vkfn dh [kkfjt djds o [kkrk 49 xkVk 2861&66] 311@&64 ls uke jkensuh vkfn [kkfjt djds o [kkrk 73 xkVk 57@32] 59@71] 62@16] 77@&20 ls uke jkensoh vkfn [kkfjt djds o [kkrk 47 xkVk 309A 1-00 ls lgnso vkfn dk uke [kkfjt djds o [kkrk 35 xkVk 249@2A &31 ls uke xuifr [kkfjt djds uke edlwn vgen o eglwn vgen iq= olh vgen o Jh erh rgoqyfulk csok olh vgen crkSj Hkwfe/kj 1360 Q0 ntZ gksos vkSj [kkrsnkjku dk uke Q0 vk/kkj o"kZ esa ntZ gS crkSj vkleh fteu 7 ntZ gksosA** 5. The respondents being aggrieved have filed two appeals against above referred order dated 11.05.1973, before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation by an order dated 11.09.1974 allowed both appeals and set aside the order passed by Consolidation Officer. The Appellate Authority has returned a finding that petitioners were failed to prove that they got land in dispute in pursuance of family settlement. Respondents were in possession of the land even before Act of 1950 came into force and even thereafter the petitioners have never taken any remedy to expunge those entries or never disputed their possession. Any reliance on arbitration was also rejected. The plea of petitioners in regard to Section 21(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 was also rejected. Respondents were in possession of the land even before Act of 1950 came into force and even thereafter the petitioners have never taken any remedy to expunge those entries or never disputed their possession. Any reliance on arbitration was also rejected. The plea of petitioners in regard to Section 21(1)(h) of the Act of 1950 was also rejected. Relevant paragraph of order is reproduced below -: ^^bl lEcU/k esa ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd vk/kkj o"kZ dk bUnzkt lhjnkjh oxZ esa vihy drkZx.k ds uke FkkA /kkjk 9@21 ds vUrxZr vkifRr mRrjoknh x.k us izLrqr dh Fkh vr% viuk nkok lkfcr djus dk okjlcwr Lo;a vkifRr drkZx.k ij FkkA os ;g lkfcr djsa fd vkjkth futkbZ vkilh cVokjs ls muds firk dks muds fgLls es feyh Fkh rFkk og fd muds firk 9 vizSy lu~ 1946 dks vkSj mlls iwoZ izfroknhx.k ds dCts ds fnukad dks v{ke jgrs Fks rFkk ;g fd vkjkth futkbZ ij izfroknh x.k dks dCtk ugh gS vkSj Lo;a vkifRrdrkZx.k dk gSA tgka rd dCts dk iz'u gS vihydrkZx.k lgnso vkfn dk uke[kkrk 47 ds xkVk futkbZ ij lu~ 1345 Q0 ls dkLrdkj lhj ds oxZ esa rFkk 1360 Q0 esa vf/koklh oxZ esa vkSj vk/kkj o"kZ dkxtkr esa lhjnkjh oxZ esa ik;k tkrk gSA blh izdkj [kkrk la[;k 49 o [kkrk lu~ 73 dh vkjkth ij jke/kuh dk uke 1358 Q0 esa 6 lky eqír ds lkFk lhj ds dkLrdkj 1362 Q0 esa vf/koklh vkSj vk/kkj o"kZ esa lhjnkjh oxZ esa ntZ ik;k tkrk gSA ;|fi pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us Hkh izLrqr okn esa vkjkth futkbZ ij vkifRr drkZx.k dk gh dCtk tkurs gq, mUgs vklkeh oxZ 7 ?kksf"kr fd;k gSA bl izdkj vkjkth futkbZ ij dCtk rks tehankjh fouk'k iwoZ esa vihydrkZ x.k dk gh izekf.kr gksrk gS vkSj mDr oknhx.k dh vksj ls oxZ 7 ds bUnzkt ds fo:) dksbZ vihy Hkh izLrqr ugh dh xbZ gSA blls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd mUgsa vkjkth futkbZ ij vihydrkZx.k dk dCtk Lohdkj gSA vc iz'u ;g jg tkrk gS fd vihydrkZx.k vkjkth futkbZ ds vklkeh gS ftldks fo0 pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us ?kksf"kr fd;k gSA vihydrkZ x.k edlwn vgen vkfn o muds firk dk uke vkjkth futkbZ ij tehankjh fouk'k ds iwoZ dkxtkr esa fdlh Hkh gSfl;r ls ntZ ugh ik;k tkrkA 1359 Q0 ds [krkSuh ds [kkrksa ds vuqlkj ewy [kkrk tehankjh dh lhj FkhA bl lhj ds [kkrs esa u rks vkifRr drkZ x.k dk uke vkSj u rks vkifRrdrkZ x.k ds firk olh egEen vFkok buds firk vCnqy tyhy dk uke ntZ Fkk vkSj u gh fdlh iap fu.kZ; dh dksbZ ,slh izfrfyfi nkf[ky dh xbZ gSA ftlls ;g izekf.kr gS fd iap fu.kZ; ds tfj;s vkjkth futkbZ tehnkjh fouk'k ds iwoZ vkifRr drkZ x.kksa dks muds fgLls esa feyh FkhA tehnkjh fouk'k iwoZ ds lhj ds ukrs esa mRrj oknh x.k fgLlsnkj ugh FksA vkilh cVokjk fgLlsnkjks ds chp gks ldrk FkkA vkSj tc vkifRrdrkZ x.k ds muds firk lhj ds [kkrs esa fgLlsnkj gh ugh Fks rks vkilh caVokjs dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugh mBrk vkSj lhj dh vkjkth fdlh vU; rjhds ls gLrkUrfjr Hkh ugh dh tk ldrh FkhA bl foospuk ls eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk fd mRrjoknh x.k tehankjh fouk'k iwoZ vkjkth futkbZ ds Lokeh vFkok dkLrdkj ugh FksA vr% tehankjh fuokul okn mudh Hkwfe/kjh gksus dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugh mBrkA tehankjh fouk'k iwoZ vkjkth futkbZ 'kkg eqgEen tehnkj vkfn dh lhj Fkh vkSj vihydrkZ x.k lhj ds dkLrdkj Fks tks tehnkjh foukl okn vf/koklh gq, rFkk tehnkjh fouk'k vkdkj i= 101 ij ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqlkj lhjnkj gqWa tSlk fd 1362 Q0 dh [krkSuh ds [kkus dSfQ;r es bUnzkt gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr esa vkifRr drkZx.k edlwn vgen vkfn dk vkjkth futkbZ ls dksbZ lEcU/k izekf.kr ugha gSA cgl ds fy;s FkksMh lh nsj ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk; ;|fi ;g izekf.kr ugh gS tSlk fd Åij dgk x;k gS fd fdlh izdkj vkjkth futkbZ vkifRr drkZx.k dh fgLls dh Fkh rks Hkh tehnkjh fouk'k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 21A;pA ds vUrxZr lhj dk dkLrdkj mlh lwjr esa vklkeh gks ldrk FkkA tc fd ;fn vkjkth 9 vizSy lu~ 46 ls igys mBkbZ xbZ Fkh dCts ds fnukad 9 vizSy lu~ 46 ds ckn mBkbZ xbZ rks mBkus ds fnu v{ke O;fDr FksA [kkrk 47 dh vkjkth lu~ 1345 Q0 esa lgnso vkfn ds firk vej dk uke rFkk [kkrk 73 dh vkjkth dk e/kuh vkfn ds uke 1358 Q0 esa 6 lky eqír ds lkFk oxZ 17 ntZ FkhA tc fd mlh eqgEen lu~ 49 esa ;fn 1356 Q0 esa Hkjk FkkA vkif= drkZ x.k us viuh vkifRr esa u rks ,d Hkh 'kCn bl vk'k; dk dgka gS fd blh eqgEen vius thou dky esa v{keO;fDr Fks vkSj u ;g izekf.kr gh fd;k x;k gS vr% izLrqr ekeys esa /kkjk 21 ;kp0 ykxw ugh gksrh vkSj /kkjk 20 ds vUrxZr tehankjh fouk'k iwoZ lhj ds dkLrdkj vf/koklh gq, vkSj /kkjk 340 ch ds vUrxZr lhjnkj gSA mijksDr fujh{k.k ds vk/kkj ij esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk fd vkifRr drkZ x.k viuk nkok lkfor djus ds furkUr vlQy jgsA vr% vk/kkj o"kZ dh dkxtkr ds bUnzkt dks xyr ekuus vkSj mlesa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gksrkA ;|fi pdcUnh vf/kdkjh us vkjkth futkbZ dks rugk ekuus dk rFkk v{ke O;fDr ekuus dh xyrh dh gSA vr% mudk fu.kZ; [kkrk la0 47 vkSj 49 o 73 ds ckcr fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk bu [kkrksa ds ckcr mRrj oknhx.k vkifRr drkZ x.k dh vkifRr fujLr dh tkus ;ksX; gSA vkSj vk/kkj o"kZ bUnzkt o nLrwj jguk pkfg;sA mijksDr ds vk/kkj ij nksuksa vihysa Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vkSj [kkrk la0 47 o 49 vkS 73 dk vk/kkj o"kZ bUnzkt iwoZr jgsxk rFkk bl [kkrksa ds ckcr pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk fu.kZ; dk;e jgsxkA ;g vkns'k vihy la0 972 dh i=koyh ij j[kk tk;sxkA rFkk vihy la0 974 dh i=koyh ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA** 6. Under aforesaid circumstances, petitioners preferred a revision petition before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 15.12.1976 mainly relying upon findings given by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Under aforesaid circumstances, petitioners preferred a revision petition before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia, however, the same was rejected by an order dated 15.12.1976 mainly relying upon findings given by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Relevant part is quoted below -: ^^mijksDr rdksZa ds [k.Mu esa izfri{khx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us bl vk'k; dk rdZ fn;k fd o"kZ 1359 Q0 esa fookfnr [kkrksa ij dgh Hkh olh vgen ;k fuxjkuh drkZx.k dk uke vafdr ugha gSA 1358 Q0 esa Hkh ;gh izfof"V;ka feyrhA izfri{khx.k dk uke 1358 Q0 ls gh fookfnr [kkrksa ij lhj ds dk'rdkj ds :i esa vafdr ik;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj fuxjkuh drkZ x.k dks bl Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vkifRr djrs dk dksbZ vf/kdkj gh ugha gSA 1358] 1359 Q0 esa tks eq[; [kkrsnkj vafdr gS os Lor% ;k muds okfjl gh vk/kkj o"kZ dh izfof"V;ksa ds pqukSrh ns ldrs gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdZ esa vkxs ;g Hkh dgk fd ;fn FkksMh nsj ds fy;s ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk; fd fuxjkuh drkZ x.k edlwn vgen vkfn dh fookfnr xk<+a ls fdlh izdkj lEcU/k Fkk rks Hkh vkjkth utkbZ ds izfri{kh x.k lhjnkj gks tkrs gS D;ksafd /kkjk 21 ;kp0 ds vUrxZr lhj dk dkLrdkj mlh lwjr esa vklkeh gks ldrk Fkk tc fd vkjkth vizSy 9] 1946 ds igys ls gh eq[; [kkrsnkj }kjk mBkbZ xbZ Fkh vkSj Hkwfe ;g fl) ugha gks ldk gS fd vizSy 9] 1946 dh olh vgen ;k vU; lhj ds fgLlsnkjku v{ke FksA vr% /kkjk 21 ;p0 dk ykHk fuxjkuh drkZ x.k dk dnkfi ugh fey ldrk gSaA eSaus mijksDr ij fopkj fd;k [krkSuh m/kj.k o"kZ 1358] 1359 Q0 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd fuxjkuh drkZ x.k ;k muds firk olh vgen dk uke dgh Hkh fookfnr [kkrksa ij lhj ds ekfyd ds :i esa vafdr ugha gSA bl izdkj dk vkjkth utkbZ ls dbZ lEcU/k vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds ek/; ls fl) ugh gks ikrk gSA blds foijhr izfri{kh x.k o"kZ 1358 Q0 ls gh lEcfU/kr [kkr ds f'kdehnkj FksA vr% tehnkjh mUewyu ds i'pkr /kkjk 20 ds vUrxZr vf/koklh gksrs gq, Hkh lhjnkj gks x;s rn~uqlkj fuxjkuh drkZ x.k viuk nkok fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA fo}ku cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh us tks fu.kZ; fn;k gS og U;k;ksfpr gSA fuxjkuh drkZ x.k fookfnr Hkwfe ds Lokeh ugh gks ldrs gSA vk/kkj o"kZ dh izfof"V;ka cgky j[kh tkuh pkfg;s FkhA fuxjkuh fujk/kkj ikbZ tkrh gS] o ,rn~ }kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 7. In the present writ petition, order dated 15.12.1976 of Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 11.09.1974 of Settlement Officer of Consolidation are under challenge. 8. Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued and submitted various arguments which in brief are mentioned below -: i. Father of petitioners no. 1 and 2 were minor and husband of petitioner no.3 was invalid person and was unable to look after his land, therefore, for purpose of care-taking the land, it was given to respondents and they were disabled after death of Vasi Ahmed which continued even after proclamation of Act of 1950 as well as on commencement of consolidation proceedings and therefore legal consequence thereof will follow. ii. In this regard, learned counsel has referred Section 21(1)(H) of Act of 1950 and for reference, same is quoted below -: "21. Non-occupancy tenants, sub-tenants of grove-lands and tenant's mortgagees to be asamis. - [(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupied or held land as- xxx xxx xxx (h) a tenant of sir of land referred to in sub-clause (a) of Clause (i) of the explanation under Section 16, a sub-tenant referred to in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Section 20 or an occupant referred to in sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of the said section where the land-holder or if there are more than one land-holders, all of them were person or persons belonging- (a) if the land was let out or occupied prior to the ninth day of April, 1946, both on the date of letting or occupation, as the case may be and on the ninth day of April, 1946; and (b) if the land was let out or occupied [on or] after the ninth day of April, 1946, on the day of letting or occupation, to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 157." and he has submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider it in its correct perspective. iii. Learned counsel has also referred Section 10(2) of Act of 1950 that petitioners being a woman and minor sons and his father being a person incapable of cultivation, therefore, they became sirdar, therefore, respondents would remain tenant of sir of petitioners. iii. Learned counsel has also referred Section 10(2) of Act of 1950 that petitioners being a woman and minor sons and his father being a person incapable of cultivation, therefore, they became sirdar, therefore, respondents would remain tenant of sir of petitioners. Section 10(2) of Act of 1950 is quoted below -: "10. Tenants of sir - (2) Nothing in [sub-section (1) and (1-A)] shall apply to a tenant of sir if his land-holder was- (i) a woman; (ii) a minor; (iii) a lunatic; (iv) an idiot; (v) a person incapable of cultivation by reason of blindness or physical infirmity; or (vi) a person in military, naval or air force of Indian Union." iv. Learned counsel also referred Section 157 of Act of 1950 that petitioners had power to grant lease of land to respondents for only looking after the land since petitioners were disabled. The petitioners were jamindars and land was given to respondents only for purpose to look it after. v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation have not considered oral submissions of rival parties. vi. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred finding returned by Consolidation Officer that those were based on correct consideration of evidence led by both parties and it was erroneously interfered by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and further erroneously upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation. vii. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on statement of arbitrator who has deposed that family partition actually took place. He also referred outcome of proceedings undertaken between parties under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. wherein possession of petitioners were admitted. 9. Aforesaid arguments of learned counsel for petitioners are vehemently opposed by Sri Ramakant Singh, learned counsel for respondents that matter is arising out of a title dispute and relevant issue which was specifically raised before the Consolidation Officer that no alleged family partition took place but erroneously it was not framed, therefore, an irregularity was erupted in the order of Consolidation Officer whereas the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has considered the arguments in regard to alleged family partition and returned a specific finding that petitioners have failed to prove that family partition was never taken place. 10. 10. Learned counsel for respondents has referred relevant part of order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that every argument of petitioners was rejected with reasons, whether it was in regard to disability, family partition or applicability of Section 21(1)(h) of Act of 1950. 11. Learned counsel also referred that any proceeding undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C. does not give a proof of title. The evidence led by petitioners was in regard to litigation between other parties wherein the respondents were not party. 12. Learned counsel also submitted that evidence led by petitioners in regard to earlier litigation cannot be relied upon since neither petitioners nor respondents were parties therein. He also referred order passed by Consolidation Officer that findings returned were based on proceedings of other litigation and not on basis of material brought or evidence led in present case. 13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioners has added that petitioners were party in earlier litigation, therefore, evidence led therein or order passed therein would have legal binding. 14. Learned counsel also referred that petitioners were disabled even before 09.04.1946, therefore, Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation has incorrectly rejected the argument in regard to applicability of Section 21(1)(h) of Act of 1950. He also referred that in the year 1359-F, name of father of petitioners was mentioned and for that he referred order passed by Consolidation Officer. 15. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Durjan and others v. Consolidation Officer and others, 1959 RD 48. 16. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 17. The claim of petitioners was based on two issues, firstly, they got the land in dispute in a family partition and since they were disabled (being/widow and her two minor sons), land in dispute which was given to respondents only for purpose to look after, would not create any right in their favour. 18. The findings in regard to disability was specific and based on evidence as returned by the Consolidation Officer. The said findings were not specifically disturbed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. 19. The dispute remains whether petitioners got land in partition. The findings returned in favour of petitioners were set aside by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and was further confirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The said findings were not specifically disturbed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. 19. The dispute remains whether petitioners got land in partition. The findings returned in favour of petitioners were set aside by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and was further confirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 20. The Appellate Authority has returned a categorical finding that in 1359, dispute land was a zamidari land, however, name of petitioners or their father was not recorded nor any document was brought on which could give right to them. The Consolidation Officer gave more weightage to disability and at family partition had taken place but from perusal of order passed by Consolidation Officer, no document was referred which could support such findings, therefore, it was a perverse finding. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rejected such findings and has referred Khatauni of 1358F and 1359F, which has not been disputed. 21. The other documents such as order passed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. or statement of arbitrator, which were basis of order passed by Consolidation Officer, however, since proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C would not devolve any right of title as well as statement of arbitrator recorded in earlier proceedings would have no legal basis to consider it in the present case, therefore, both document was rightly rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 22. In order to seek benefit of disability to petitioners, they have to prove that their name of their father/husband was recorded as owner of sir in revenue records. However, as recorded by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, no such revenue record was placed on record whereas respondents who were sir in 1358-F got advantage of Section 20 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and they became adhivasi and despite being adhivasi, they became sirdar. Therefore, the petitioners have failed to prove their disability for the purpose of Section 21(1)(h) and findings of Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities in this regard are legal and no circumstance exists which could warrant interference with concurrent findings of two Authorities. 23. Therefore, the petitioners have failed to prove their disability for the purpose of Section 21(1)(h) and findings of Appellate as well as Revisional Authorities in this regard are legal and no circumstance exists which could warrant interference with concurrent findings of two Authorities. 23. In this regard, relevant paragraphs of two judgments passed by Supreme Court would be relevant to mention to mention hereinafter that in absence of essential factors such as perversity and order being passed beyond jurisdiction, no circumstance exists to interfere with concurrent findings returned by two Authorities i.e. Appellate and Revisional Authorities:- Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another v. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 996 -: "65. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory. 66. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (See : King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128 (PC))" [emphasis supplied] Krishnanand (dead) through LRs and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 -: "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. 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." [emphasis supplied] 24. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with concurrent findings of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, this writ petition being sans merit is liable to be dismissed, hence, dismissed.