JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. This case is arising out of a proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short "Act, 1953") in respect of a dispute regarding plot no. 941, khata no. 110 situated in village Agraha, Tehsil Badlapur, District Jaunpur. 2. It is not in dispute that in basic year, name of Ram Chandra s/o Ajudhia i.e. original respondent no.4 was recorded. The original petitioner before this Court had filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1953 claiming to be co-sharer of land in dispute to extent of 1/3. Another objection was filed by one Ratipal Singh and others, claiming to be owners of trees standing on land in dispute. 3. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, on 05.07.1973 rejected the objections submitted by petitioners. The claim of Ratipal (respondent no.5) in regard to ownership of trees was rejected since no evidence was found. 3. The Consolidation Officer, after considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, on 05.07.1973 rejected the objections submitted by petitioners. The claim of Ratipal (respondent no.5) in regard to ownership of trees was rejected since no evidence was found. The Consolidation Officer has framed following four issues and relevant findings thereof are mentioned below -: ^^izLrqr okn xkVk 941@84 [kkrk 110 ls lacaf/kr gSA bl [kkrk esa jke panz vk;ks/;k crkSj Hkwfe/kj ntZ gSA jktnso flag vkSj jsthr flag us vkifRr izLrqr dh gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa mudk 1@3 Hkkx gSA jfriky flag vkfn us vkifRr izLrqr dh gS fd xkVk 941 esa fLFkr isMks+a ds og dSnkj gSa vr% isMksa esa mudk uke ntZ fd;k tkosA okn esa fuLrkj.k gsrq fuEu okn fcUnq cuk;s x;s gSa] 1& D;k jktnso flag o jsthr flag xkVk ua0 941@84 ds 1@3 ds Hkwfe/kj ekfyd gSaA 2& D;k jfriky flag vkjksi xkVk ua0 941@84 ds cSnkj ekfyd dkfct gSa vkSj xkVk futkbZ esa muds isM+ fLFkr gSaA 3& D;k fookfnr xkVk [kkrknkjksa dk ckx gSA 4& [kkrs dk foHkktu D;k gS\ i{kksa dks lk{; izLrqr djus dk volj fn;k x;kA muds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdkZsa dks lquk x;k RkFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA blh vk/kkj ij okn fcanqvksa ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA okn fcanq&2 jfriky flag us viuh vkifRr dks iqf"V lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k rFkk eqdnek dh iSjoh NksM+ nh gS vr% mudh vkifRr [kkfjt gksuh pkfg;sA okn fcanq rnuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA okn fcanq&1 jktnso flag us xkVk futkbZ ds laca/k esa udy [kljk cankscLr 1287 Q0 izLrqr fd;k gSA ftlesa xkVk 941@&84 esa tehankj crkSj ekfyd ntZ gSA fooj.k ds ikus esa dkQh isM+ksa dh rWQ~lhy ntZ gS rFkk vehj flag iq= ljtw flag o lfyj flag iq= nsoh flag o jfriky flag iq= Hkxokunhu flag o jUuw flag o lothr flag iq= f'kouanu flag dkfct ntZ gSA blh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mudk dguk gS fd jkuw flag tks muds firk ds 1@3 ds ekfyd o dkfct Fks bl fy;s mudk uke 1@3 Hkkx ij ntZ fd;k tkosA jkepanz flag dk dFku gS fd xkVk futkbZ esa fLFkr iqjkus isM+ fxj x;s blds ckn muds firk us tehankj ls iqu% izca/k djkds u;s isM+ yxk;s x;s gSa mUgksaus bldh iqf"V esa udy [krkSuh 1356 Q0 izLrqr dh gSA bl [krkSuh esa vk;ks/;k flag ¼QVk gS½ fteu 8 esa ntZ gSA rFkk vU; xkVksa ds lkFk fookfnr xkVksa ijs ¼QVk gS½ 1 lky ntZ gS [kljk cankscLr gky ns[kus ls irk pyrk gS fd dkfct ds [kkrs esa v;ks/;k flag dk uds firk dk uke dkfct [kkrs esa ntZ ugha gS vkSj u vU; fyf[kr [kkrsnkjksa dk bl Hkwfe ij dHkh ntZ gqvk v;ks/;k flag dk uke igys igys 1356 Q0 esa 1 o"kZ ds lkFk ntZ gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mudk dguk gS fd muds firk us tehankj iqu% izca/k djk;k lR; izrhr gksrk gSA jktnso flag vius dks 1@3 dk ekfyd fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSaA okn fcanq rnuqlkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA okn fcanq&3 l0p0v0 dh fjiksVZ gS fd xkVk ekSdk ij ckx gS i{kksa dks Hkh Lohdkj gS vr% xkVk futkbZ ckx ntZ gksuk pfkg;s okn fcanq rnuqlkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA okn fcanq&4 xkVk futkbZ ekSds ij ckx gS rFkk jkepanz ds uke rugk ntZ gS blfy, caVokjs dk dksbZ iz'u gh ugha gSA okn fcanq rnuqlkj fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** [emphasis supplied] 4. The original petitioner being aggrieved by above order preferred an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 21.12.1973. The Appellate Authority has returned a finding that on dispute land, there was a grove and it was never recorded as a barren land catj Hkfe and held that petitioners have rightful claim to the extent of 1/3. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 21.12.1973. The Appellate Authority has returned a finding that on dispute land, there was a grove and it was never recorded as a barren land catj Hkfe and held that petitioners have rightful claim to the extent of 1/3. Relevant finding of Settlement Officer of Consolidation is given below -: ^^LFky ds vuqlkj eSaus ns[kk fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa nks isM+ vke ds cgqr cM+s u iqjkus gSa ftudh mez lkS lky ls vf/kd dh gSA canksoLr gky esa ukS vke ds isM+ ntZ gSaA bu isM+ksa ij edcqtk vehj flag] jUuh flag o loZthr flag] oxSjg ntZ gSa lqcwr ls ;g ckr fl) gS fd vkifRrdrkZ ds firk dk uke juksa flag mQZ jathr flag Fkk vkSj vihydrkZ ds firk o pkpk fookfnr isM+ksa ij eqdotk ntZ gS cankscLrh isM+ vHkh bl ckx esa [kM+s gSa ftlls ;g ckr fl) gks tkrh gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa vihydrkZ ds Hkh isM+ gSa fefly ij dksbZ ,slk lcwr ugha gS fd ftlls fl) gks lds fd canksoLrh isM+ lekIr gksdj fookfnr Hkwfe catj gks xbZ vkSj u ;gh fl) gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dk canksoLr fjlikaWMsaV ds firk us tehankj dks fy;k Fkk fjlikWaMsaVdk dguk gS fd mlds firk us tehankj ls Hkwfe dk cVk iPpkl ls mij gqvk fy;k Fkk u rks fefly ij iVk nkf[ky gS vkSJ u ml iVk ds vk/kkj ij dkxtkr esa fjlikaWMsaV ij mlds firk dk uke ntZ gqvkA fookfnr Hkwfe fjLikaWMsaV ds uke igyh okn 1356 Q0 esa vU; xkVksa ds lkFk ntZ gqbZA ;g fdl vk/kkj ij ntZ gqbZ dkbZ lcwr ugha gS fjLikaMsaV dk ;g dguk fd isM+ deh'kuj isM+ksa ds ckjs esa tks mez fy[kh gS og lgh gSA bl izdkj og ckr fl) gks tkrh gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe canksoLr gky esa ckx dh ftlesa isM+ksa ij nksuksa i{kksa ds eqjklksa dk dCtk Fkk ij ckx dHkh catj dh ;g ugha gqbZ vkSj u fjLikWaMsaV ds firk ds uke dHkh bldk cankscLr gqvk 1356 Q0 ls ,dk,d feyk fdlh vk/kkj ij fjLikWaMsaV dk uke ntZ gksuk fu;e ds fo:) gS bl uke esa vihydrkZ ds Hkh cankscLrh isM+ gSa vkSj eSa bl ckr esa lg[kkrsnkj pdcanh vf/kdkjh ls vf/kdkjh ls fu"d"kZ fudkyrs esa xyrh fd;kA vr% pdcanh vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k jn fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vihydrkZ jktnso iqj[kh mQZ jathr flag dk uke crkSj lg[kkrsnkj xkVk la0 941@&84 ntZ fd;k tk;sA** [emphasis supplied] 5. Above order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was challenged by way of a revision petition at behest of original contesting respondent. Above order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was challenged by way of a revision petition at behest of original contesting respondent. The revision petition was allowed by impugned order dated 12.04.1978 and relevant part thereof is quoted below -: ^^nksuksa i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl lquh rFkk i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl Hkwfe ds ckjs esa lcls iqjkuk dkxt udy [kljk cankscLr gS tks ;g izdV djrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ds ekfyd vCnqy gehn FksA [kljk cankscLr esa vehj flag iq= ljtw flag] lhy flag iq= nsoh flag] jrhiky flag iq= Hkokuh nhu] jUuw flag o loZthr flag iq=x.k f'kouanu flag ds uke vafdr gS vkSj bl Hkwfe ij 1 isM+ vke 5 isM+ egqvk nks isM+ tkequ nks isM+ beyh rhu dksBh ckal rhu isM+ xwyj nks isM+ uhe o ,d isM+ ccwy vafdr gSA blds ckn vxyk dkxt 1309 Q0 dk gS ftlesa ;g Hkwfe ijrh dnhe vafdr gSA 334 Q0 esa Hkh ;g ijrh dnhe vafdr gSA bl izdkj 1209 ls 1334 Q0 rd ;kuh 47 o"kZ rd Hkwfe ijrh dnhe vafer jghA 1351 Q0 esa v;ks/;k iq= fcank flag ds [kkrs esa ;g Hkwfe cgqír 18 lky vafdr gSA 1353 Q0 esa Hkh ;g Hkwfe oeqír 1 lky vafdr gSA 1352 Q0 esa eqír 19 lky ntZ gSA 1355 Q0 eqír 11 lky ntZ gS bu eqírksa dh fHkUurk dsoy ;g izxV djrh gS fd rRdkyhu iVokjh us eqír euekus rjhds ls fy[kh gS ysfdu ;g ckr viuh txg fuf'pr gS fd ijrh dnhe ds banzkt ds ckn loZizFke v;ks/;k flag ds gh uke dk gS v;ks/;k flag ds firk fcanzk flag ftudk uke cankscLr esa vafdr ukeksa ls esy ugha [kkrkA jktnso us vius c;ku crk;k fd fookfnr Hkfe tehankj dh ckx Fkh vkSj bldk edcwtkjuw oxSjg ds bl ckr dks tkuus ds fy, fd D;k cankscLr ds le; dh ckx dk;e jgh fo}ku c0v0p0 us Lo;a LFky fujh{k.k fd;k rFkk odhy dfe'uj ls Hkh LFky fujh{k.k djk;k vkSj ;g nknk fd gt ij 6 vke ds isM+ cgqr iqjkus 125 lky mez ds gSA ,l fl?kksj dk isM+ 100 lky iqjkuk] xwyj dk isM+ 80 lky iqjkus [kM+s gSa blds ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k fd cankscLr ds le; dh ckx vc Hkh pyh vk jgh gS pdcanh vf/kdkjh us [krkSuh 1356 Q0 esa vafdr v;ks/;k flag ds uke ds [kkrs esa bldh eqír ,d lky ekurs gq, vkifRr [kkfjt dh] tSlk fd Åij mYys[k f;dk tk pqdk gS eqír ds ckr fo'oluh; ugha gS fuxjkuhdrkZ us fookfnr Hkwfe ds ckjs esa u rks dksbZ u;k canksoLr gh tehankj ls gkuk crk;k vkSj u mls fl) gh fd;kA blds foijhr foi{kh jktnso us Hkh vius dks jUuw flag iq= f'kouanu flag dk yM+dk crk;k foi{kh jrhiky egkohj flag dk yM+dk gS tcfd cUnkscLr esa ftl jfriky flag dk uke vafdr gS mlds firk Hkokuhnhu FksA foi{khx.k dks fdlh izdkj ls cankscLr gky esa vafdr O;fDr;ksa ls lacafkr ik;k gS bldk u rks mUgksaus vius fu.kZ; esa dkbZ mYys[k fd;k vkSj u i=koyh ls gh ;g muds okfjl vFkok oa'kt fl) gksrs gSaA nwljh fuxjkuhdrkZ dh bl ckr dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dk cankscLr mlds firk ds lkFk dc vkSj fdlus fd;kA tcfd nksuksa gh i{k vius dFku dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgs gSa rks vk/kkj o"kZ ds banzkt dks j[kuk pkfg;sA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk c0v0p0 dk vkns'k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij o"kZ dk banzkt cnLrwj vafdr jgsxkA** [emphasis supplied] 6. Sri R.P. Singh Parihar, learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that original petitioner and respondent belonged to one family and they have claimed right of co-sharer to the extent of 1/3. The Appellate Authority has considered the entire case in its correct perspective and held that original petitioners to be entitled to the extent of 1/3 share. The land was never recorded as barren land catj Hkfe and it remained always as a grove land. Even the inspection report states so. Learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 7. Per contra, Sri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that original petitioner has no claim on land in dispute. It was always in the name of original contesting respondents. It remained recorded as barren land catj Hkfe for many years and thereafter remained in name of father of contesting respondent. 8. Learned counsel has further submitted that original petitioner was not family member of family of contesting respondents. He has further submitted that Ranno Singh was not son of Sheo Nandan and he has no relation with anyone in bandobast. He never belonged to same family. He has further submitted that Revisional Authority has rightly confirmed the entry of basic year. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. The Revisional Authority has on basis of revenue record held that land in dispute was recorded as ijnh dnhe from 1209-F to 1334-F i.e. for 47 years. On basis of spot inspection, it was held that since bandobast, land in dispute was a grove land. 11. The Revisional Authority has rejected time-line of revenue records. It was further held that neither original petitioner nor original respondent proved their respective case and that they were not recorded and failed to prove their respective claim on land in dispute and therefore, basic year entry was confirmed. 12. In this regard, a specific averment taken by the petitioner in para 11 of writ petition would be relevant and is mentioned below -: "11. That even on the finding of the respondent no.1 that both the parties have failed to prove their respective cases, he has committed an error apparent on face of record in directing to maintain the basic year entry in favour of the respondent no.4. The impugned judgment is, therefore, manifestly illegal." 13. That even on the finding of the respondent no.1 that both the parties have failed to prove their respective cases, he has committed an error apparent on face of record in directing to maintain the basic year entry in favour of the respondent no.4. The impugned judgment is, therefore, manifestly illegal." 13. I am of considered opinion that conclusion to upheld basic year entry, when both parties were failed to establish their case was not correct. In a way despite respondents failed to prove their case, only on basis of entries in basic year, their claim were accepted. The conclusion was contrary to discussion and findings. 14. Respondents have not challenged the impugned order and only petitioner has challenged. I am of considered opinion that findings returned by Revisional Authority were based on material and documents which do not warrant any interference but conclusion does. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is interfered only to extent of its conclusion i.e. to confer right of respondents only on entry of basic year. 16. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed in part and impugned order is interfered to the extent of its conclusion and matter is remitted to Revisional Authority to pass a fresh order on basis of findings returned. 17. The parties will file present memo of parties of writ petition before Deputy Director of Consolidation. 18. The aforesaid proceedings shall be concluded within a period of three months from today.