JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. This writ petition is pending since 1980. The petitioners made a claim on land in dispute on basis of their possession soon before Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force. 2. It was also claimed that earlier proceedings were initiated under Section 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, however, since consolidation proceedings were commenced, therefore, suit proceedings were abated at the stage when appeal, in second round, was pending. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, original petitioner has filed objections that on basis of a zamindari settlement they came into possession over the land in dispute and claim of respondents on basis of bainama was disputed. 4. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 03.01.1978 allowed the claim of original petitioner on ground that bainama was illegal. The entries in favour of respondents on basis of a mortgage was found not to be correct and on basis of possession, original petitioner was declared sirdar. The relevant paragraph of said order are reproduced hereinafter:- (Emphasis Supplied) 5. The aforesaid order was challenged at behest of respondents. The appeal was allowed by an order dated 11.8.1978. The Appellate Court has returned a finding that original petitioner failed to prove any zamindari settlement as well as that alleged receipt of rent was in respect of land in dispute. It was also noted that on basis of bainama, name of respondents were entered into revenue records. The relevant findings thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- (Emphasis Supplied) 6. The petitioner has thereafter filed a revision petition which was dismissed by an order dated 24.10.1979 whereby findings returned by Appellate Authority were confirmed and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- (Emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently urged that there were sufficient documentary and oral evidence to prove that petitioners predecessor-in-interest have entered upon land in dispute in a zamindari settlement and relevant findings in this regard be referred from proceedings undertaken under Section 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was later on abated. 8. Learned counsel further submits that possession of petitioners on basis of revenue records remain undisputed as there were documents to show that it was in consequence of zamindari settlement. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority has committed error. 9. The contesting respondent Nos. 8. Learned counsel further submits that possession of petitioners on basis of revenue records remain undisputed as there were documents to show that it was in consequence of zamindari settlement. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority has committed error. 9. The contesting respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were represented by their Advocate, however, today, during argument they remain absent and even no counter affidavit was filed despite this writ petition is pending for last more than 40 years. 10. I have heard counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the record. 11. It is well settled that after commencement of consolidation proceedings, any other proceedings pending before any other Court or Authority have to be declared abated and it has no legal consequence, therefore, the findings returned in proceedings undertaken under Section 229B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be read in present matter. 12. As referred above, the original petitioner has filed objections that respondents have no relations with land in dispute and bainama was creation of a fraud and has placed reliance on earlier proceedings. During proceedings, oral statements were recorded as well as documentary evidence was placed on record. 13. The Consolidation Officer has referred revenue entries and details of proceedings undertaken before commencement of consolidation proceedings, however, abruptly came to conclusion that 14. The above findings were not accompanied by any reason thereof. Further, the Appellate Authority has considered rival submissions and material on record and have specifically considered revenue entries and findings were returned that petitioners were failed to prove any zamindari settlement as well as that receipt of rent could not relate to land in dispute. 15. I have carefully perused a copy of receipts, which are annexed along with supplementary affidavit and I find that findings returned by Appellate Authority were based on record. In the said receipt, details of land was not mentioned, therefore, could not be relied upon. 16. The Appellate Authority has also taken note that on basis of bainama, name of respondents were recorded. Bainama was neither disputed nor any material was placed on record to dispute it. 17. I have also carefully perused order passed by Revisional Authority who has also confirmed the findings returned by Appellate Authority that petitioner has failed to prove basis of possession on land in dispute. Bainama was neither disputed nor any material was placed on record to dispute it. 17. I have also carefully perused order passed by Revisional Authority who has also confirmed the findings returned by Appellate Authority that petitioner has failed to prove basis of possession on land in dispute. The relevant findings has already been reproduced earlier that their name were never recorded as owner or sikmi as well as that they failed to prove any zamindari settlement. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in orders passed by two authorities i.e. Appellate as well as Revisional and it is well settled that concurrent finding of two authorities could not be interfered except being perverse or beyond jurisdiction which is not a case in hand, therefore, this writ petition being sans merit is accordingly dismissed.