JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. In the present case there is no serious dispute that rival parties belong to common ancestors. 2. A suit was filed under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950") at the instance of petitioners wherein petitioners were granted 2/3 share whereas contesting-respondents were granted 1/3 share of disputed land. 3. Sri Vishnu Singh and Sri Kuldeep Gaurav, Advocates for petitioners and Sri Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for contesting-respondents, have fairly submitted that though dispute before consolidation authorities was with regard of number of Gatas and Khatas, however, presently the dispute is only with regard to Khatas No. 176 and 333. 4. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 25.08.1973 has accepted the arguments of petitioners with regard to above referred two Khatas that it was a self acquired property and by Bakshisnama respondents were granted share to the extent of only 1/3, whereas 2/3 share remained with petitioners. 5. Aforesaid findings returned by Consolidation Officer was disturbed and interfered by Appellate Authority, i.e., Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 13.06.1975. It was held that land of disputed Khatas, referred above, was ancestral property and further reliance was placed on a Kurshinama wherein equal shares were distributed. 6. Above findings returned by Appellate Authority was upheld by Revisional Authority, i.e., Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.05.1977. Relevant part of above referred orders are mentioned hereinafter: Order dated 25.08.1973 passed by Consolidation Officer "The copy of gift deed dated 06.04.1902 shows that Shifat bibi and Bikanat bibi have admitted half share of Lal Mohd.'s descendants and half of Shah Mohd. Zuved Alam and others have filed an unregistered patta in which one share to Taj Mohd. And Noor Mohd and 2 share to Mohd. Yaseen has been given. They have filed khasra 1345 to 48 Fs. In which 1/3 and 2/3 as referred have been recorded. But the contents of patta itself shows that Lal Mohd. Shah Mohd. lived together and land was acquired by common fund. The contents of patta itself will become contrary if shares are 1/3 and 2/3 as claimed by Zuved Alam and Maqbool Alam. On the other hand the gift deed dated 06.04.1902 was a registered one of which copy is in the file in which half share of each branch wise of Lal Mohd. and Shah Mohd. has been written. The contents of patta itself will become contrary if shares are 1/3 and 2/3 as claimed by Zuved Alam and Maqbool Alam. On the other hand the gift deed dated 06.04.1902 was a registered one of which copy is in the file in which half share of each branch wise of Lal Mohd. and Shah Mohd. has been written. This gift deed is also surrender deed as in the end it has been written. But a judgement of the learned Asstt. Collector dated 12.06.69 has been filed in which on the Patta learned Assistant Collector has held 2/3 share to Zuved, Maqbool and 1/3 to Sayeed and others. There is no evidence that any appeal against it has been filed by Sayeed and others. In the same case plot no. 65 was also involved, but Maqbool, Zuved lost and has filed appeal against it, which is abated. The copy of plaint and abatement order have been filed for plot no. 65 only. Hence the finding on patta has become final and from comparative charts these plots are same as in Khata no. 176. Plot No. 65 is also in the same patta. The copy of plaint and abatement order have been filed for plot no. 65 only. Hence the finding on patta has become final and from comparative charts these plots are same as in Khata no. 176. Plot No. 65 is also in the same patta. Hence Zuved and Maqbool have 2/3 in that also." (Emphasis supplied) Order dated 13.06.1975 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation ^^de:íhu vkfn vihy laa0&17 dh vihydrkZvksa dk dFku gS fd [kkrk ua0 333 esa vafdr xkVk la0&65 teky o deky iq= x.k eqgEen vCnqy jlhn ds uke [kkrk ua0&176 dk Hkkx gSA muds uke banzkt xyr gks x;kA bu nksuksa [kkrksa esa yky eqgEen o 'kkg eqgEen ds gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa 1@2 va'k feyuk pkfg;sA fo}ku p0v0 us [kkrk ua0&333 ds xkVk 65 dks [kkrk la0 176 dk Hkkx ekuk vkSj 1@3 va'k vihy la[;k & 17 ds vihydrkZvksa de:íhu vkfn dks fn;kA de:íhu vkdn dk dguk gS fd mUgsa yky 1@2 va'k gh feyuk pkfg;s FkkA D;ksafd ;g Hkwfe yky eqgEen o 'kkg eqgEen }kjk vftZr Hkwfe gSA yky eksgEen&'kkg eksgEen ds thou dky esa ejs ml le; eqgEen jtk ukckfyx FksA 'kkg eqgEen ds nks chch fcdkur o f'kQr chch Fkh vkSj 'kkg eksgEen ¼dk0 QVk½ mudk uke mDr Hkwfe esa vk x;k gS blfy;s mUgksaus ,d ¼dk0 QVk½ 'kk[kukek fnukad & 06-04-1902 dks rkt eksgEen o uwj eksgEen iq=x.k eks0 jtk ds gd esa 1@2 va'k dk fy[kkA 1940bZ0 dks rkt eksgEen us vius iksrk eksgEen lbZn ds gd esa vius 1@4 va'k ds 1@3] ;kuh 1@12 va'k dk cf'k;rukek fy[kkA bl vk/kkj ij mudk dguk gS fd nLrkost ds dkxt ij edcwy vkye kd gLrk{kj Fkk] bl dkj.k ;g eku ysuk pkfg;s fd yky eksgEen ds lk[k esa 1@2 va'k jgkA 'kdhj o tqusn dk dguk gS fd ;g Hkwfe mudh ewfjl 'kkg eksgEen }kjk rugk vftZr Hkwfe gSA pwafd de:íhu vkfn okfjl yky eksgEen muds [kkunku ds Fks vkSj xjhc Fks blfy;s 1@3 va'k mUgsa fn;k tk;sA mudk 2@3 va'k gSA bldk fu.kZ; blds igys ,d eqdnes ls xzke uoj[kksyh dh r; gks pqdh gSA blfy;s de:íhu vkfn dk 1@3 va'k gSA ftls fo}ku p0v0 us ekukA fnukad 22-03-1881 dk ,d nLrkost 'ks[k eksgEen }kjk cgd eq0 flQr chch fo/kok 'kkg eksgEen nkf[ky fefly gSA bl nLrkost cSukek ds xkVs fookn [krk ua0 &176 ds xkVksa ls lkfcr uacjku gS vkSj Hkwfe 'kkg eqvbZu dh FkhA 19 ekpZ 1884 bZ0 dk ,d dckyk fuyke eq0 f'kQr cuke eksgEen vklhu vkfn fefly nkf[ky gSA ftlesa 'kkg eksgEen ifr fcekur chch fuyke nj fy[ks gSaA [kkrk ua0 & 176 vkSj 133 dh Hkwfe iSr`d gSA ;g i=koyh ds lk{; ls lkfcr gSA fnukad & 06-04-1902 dh nLrcjnkjh tks eq0 f'kQr chch vkSj eq0 chdkur chch u cgd eq0 ;klhu iq= 'kkg eksgEen fgCckukek ds :e esa vkSj nLrcjnkjh ds :i esa rkt eksgEen nkf[ky fefly gSA blesa dgk x;k gS fd xzke ?kjko esa yky eqgEen o 'kkg eqgEen fcjknjku gdhdh dk tqeyk dkjckj [kkunkuh dkjckj tehankj o x`gLFkh ,d tkbZ jgk vkSj og lkjk dkjckj ns[krh jghA mDr Hkwfe la;qDr :i ls iSnk dh xbZ fdarq mudk uke pyrk jgkA 'kkg eksgEen 'kSgj geeqljku tqeyk esa ekfyd jgk fdarq yky eqgEen o 'kkg eksgEen dk fgLlk nksuksa elkoh foLQ&foLQ jgkA gj nks eq[kljku us chyk ysgkt banzkt uke rdlhe fd;k vkSj pwafd ge eqdjku gj nks eqLekj Åij fuLQ fgLlk feu tqcykdqy tk;nkn ds tgk rd feLQ fgLlk lkSgj ge eqcjkudk gSA cbLrujk; fuLQ fgLlk cjlk; 'ks[k yky eqgEen eglwl dh Fkh] fcy,ot nso esgj ge ljbZ ds dkfct nkf[ky gqbZ gSA mlh feLQ&feLQ dk fglkc ;klhu dks fn;k vkSj ckdh feLQ rkt eksgEen o uwj eksgEen dks rdZ dj fn;kA bl vk/kkj ij de:íhu vkfn dk dguk gS fd [kkrk ua0 & 176 esa mudk 1@2 va'k gSA D;ksafd Hkwfe rugk fcdkur chch vkSj f'kQr chch ds uke Fkh bl dkj.k lkfcr ugha gS fd fnukad & 30-06-1881 dks nsu esgj ds mDr Hkwfe feyhA vihydrkZ de:íhu dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd ;g Hkwfe mDr Hkwfe la;qDr ifjokj }kjk vftZr dh x;h Fkh bl dkj.k 1@2 va'k yky eqgEen ds ckfjlksa dks vkSj 1@2 va'k vius yM+ds dks fn;kA oSls os dkfct FksA mlh ds vuqlkj fgCckukek fnukad & 06-04-1902 dks fy[kkA blh fnu ,d iVVk fe;knh eq0 fcekur chch o eq0 f'kQr chch o rkt eqgEen o uwj eksgEen us lqUnj eksbZjh ds gd esa fy[kkA blls xzke ?kjko ds 5 xkVs FksA blesa yxku mDr iV~Vk gqvk Fkk blesa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd iV~Vsnkj yxku vnk djds jlhn ,d 'kqCl 'ks[k] rkt eksgEen o uwj eksgEen dks vkSj nks 'kqYl 'ks[k eksgEen ;klhu okfjl gjnkseqLekr f'kQr chch o fcekur chch dks vnk djds jlhn gkfly dj fn;kA mudk g Hkh dguk gS fd mDr nksuksa nLrkost ,d nwljs ds fgLls d~ laca/k ls feyrk j[krs gSA xSj jftLV~h 'kqnk iV~Vk fe;knh dk dkxt tku gtke iq=x.k thl gTtke fnukad 04-04-1902 dks [kjhnk x;k Fkk] ;g u rks iV~Vk drkZ ;k iV~Vsnkj ds uke gSA vkSj jftLV~h vfHkys[k gSA ,d lky ls vf/kd dk iV~Vk Fkk blfy;s ,DV 2 lu~ 1902 ds vuqlkj bldk jftLV~h gksuk vko';d ugha blfy;s ;g iV~Vk xyr lkfcr gSA** (Emphasis supplied) Order dated 19.05.1977 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation ^^[kkrk la0 176 esa dqy 26 xkVs gS vkSj jdck 6-54 ,dM+ gSA bl [kkrs ij vk/kkj o"kZ esa edcwy vkye] tquSn iq=x.k eksgEen ;klhu] de:íhu] rkSghn iq=x.k uwj ekSgEen] teky o deky iq=x.k vCnqy jlhn] lbZn iq= vCnqy gehn ds uke crkSj Hkwfe/kj vafdr gSA [kkrk la0 333 ds xkVk la0 65 teky] deky iq=x.k vCnqy jlhn ds uke vafdr gSA ;g [kkrk] [kkrk la0 176 dk gh va'k gSA ldhy vgen o tquSn us [kkrk la0 176 esa 2@3 va'k ekaxkA xkVk la0 415 ds ckjs esa de:íhu vkfn us vkifRr izLrqr dh Fkh vkSj mUgksaus ;g dgk fd 'kehe vkfn dk uke ys[kiky us Qjth rkSj ls vafdr dj fn;k tcfd oxZ 9 dk vadu Hkw&vfHkys[k eSuqvy ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ugha gSA xkVk la0 300] 384 ds ckjs esa de:íhu us ,d vkifRr ;g izLrqr dh fd bu nksuks xkVksa ij mudk ,oa foi{khx.k dk dCtk cgqr fnuksa ls pyk vk jgk gSA ijarq ys[kiky us mudk uke dqN jdoka ls fudky fn;k gS] blfy, mudk dgk gS fd laiw.kZ jdcs ij mudk uke vafdr gksuk pkfg;sA xkVk la0 414 jdck&71 ds ckjs esa eksgEen lbZn mQZ líu us vkifRr izLrqr dh fd bl xkVs ij mudk dCtk cgqr fnuksa ls pyk gk jgk gS] blfy;s /kkjk 210 t0m0 ,oa Hkwfe O;oLFkk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr mUgsa lhjnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;s] tquSn vkye vkfn dk dCtk m/kj dHkh ugha Fkk vkSj u gSA tquSn vkye vkfn us bldk izfrokn fd;k vkSj ;g dgk fd eksgEen lbZn vkfn dk okLrk o ljksdkj fookfnr Hkwfe ls ugha gSA [kkrk laa0 333 ds xkVk la0 85 jdck&57 fM0 ds ckjs esa tquSn us ,d vkifRr fnukad 12-01-72 dks izLrqr dh Fkh ftlesa ;g dgk fd mudk bl xkVs esa 2@3 fgLlk gS] blfy;s mudk ;g fgLlk vyx fd;k tk;sA de:íhu vkfn us vius c;ku esa ,d dqlhZukek fn;k gSA bl dqlhZukes ds vuqlkj tquSn vksj 'kdhy 'kkg eksgEen ds oa'kt gSA vkSj eksgEen lbZn mQZ lnu vkSj teky vgen] yky eksgEen ds oa'kt gSA de:íhu vkSj rkSghn Hkh yky eksgEen ds oa'kt gSA tgka rd dqlhZukesa dk iz'u gSA ;g fufoZokn gSA [kkrk la0 333] [kkrk la0 176 dk va'k gSA vc ns[kuk gS fd fuxjhuhdrkZx.k tquSn vkfn ds Hkkx [kkrk la0 176] 333 ds ckjs esa dgka rd lgh gSA okn la0 64@124@554 lu~ 1969 varxZr /kkjk 220 ch ekStk ?kjko ds ckjs esa Fkk ftlesa dsoy xkVk la0 85 jdck 57 fM0 ds ckjs esa fookn FkkA lgk;d dySDVj izFke Js.kh us tquSn vkye ds nkos dks fMxzh fd;k ftlesa mUgksus 2@3 va'k ekaxk FkkA vihy la0 414 fnukad 27-10-70 dks ewyokn lfgr vosV dj fn;k x;k ftldk ;g vFkZ gqvk fd tSls dksbZ eqdnek gh u nk;j fd;k x;k gksA tgka rd cD'kh'kukek fnukad 06-04-1902 dk iz'u gS] ;g fcdkur chch vkSj flQr chch }kjk lkt eksgEen vkSj uwj eksgEen iq= x.k eksgEen jtk ds gd esa 1@2 va'k fy[kk x;k FkkA 1946 esa lkt eksgEen us vius iksrk eksgEen lbZn dks viuk 1@4 va'k ds 1@3 va'k vFkkZr 1@13 va'k clh;rukek rgjhj fd;kA bl nLrkost ij edcwy us crkSj xokg gLrk{kj fd;k gSA ldhy o tquSn dk dguk gS fd ;g Hkwfe muds eqfjl 'kkg eksgEen }kjk rugk gkfly dh x;h FkhA pwafd de:íhu vkfn okfjl yky eksgEen] muds ifjokj ds Fks vkSj xjhc Fks] blfy;s mUgsa 1@3 va'k feyuk pkfg vkSj fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dk 2@3 va'k gSA mUgksaus xzke [kjlkSyh ls lacaf/kr eq0la0 42 lu~ 1963 varxZr /kkjk 229 ch] de:íhu vkfn cuke edcwy esa fu.kZ; fnukad 25-05-64 dk lgkjk fy;k gS ftlesa 'kkg eksgEen dh 'kk[k dk 2@3 va'k ekuk x;k FkkA mudk dguk gS fd ;g fu.kZ; izkax U;k; dk vlj j[krk gSA pdcanh vf/kdkjh us mls vk/kkj ekudj tquSn dks 2@3 va'k fn;k Fkk ijarq vc ns[kuk gS fd D;k tquSn us mls vk/kkj ekudj tquSn dks 2@3 va'k fn;k Fkk ijarq vc ns[kuk gS fd D;k tquSn vkye vkfn dks 2@3 va'k fey ldrk gS ;k ughaA cSukek fnukad 22-03-1881 'ks[k eksgEen] flQr chch osok 'kkg eksgEen rgjhj fd;k x;kA bl cSukesa dk xkVk fookfnr [kkrk la0 176 ds xkVksa ds lkfcd uacj gS vkSj Hkwfe ljgeuqek;u FkhA fnukad 10-03-1884 dk ,d dcklk uhye flQr chch cuke eksgEen ;klhu i=koyh ij nkf[ky gSA 'kkg eksgEen ifr fcdkur chch uhykenkj fy[ks gSA bl izdkj [kkrk la0 176] 333 dh Hkwfe iSr`d fl) gSA** (Emphasis supplied) 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that findings returned by Appellate Authority and upheld by Revisional Authority that disputed land of Khatas No. 176 and 333 was ancestral property, was as a result of misreading of evidence on record, specifically when it was noted that land in dispute was acquired in an auction proceeding. In supported of his submission, learned counsel for petitioners has referred para 5 of writ petition which is reproduced hereinafter: "5. That the petitioners contested the claim of the contesting respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the plots in dispute were acquired by means of auction sale in the name of Sifat Bibi and Bikanat Bibi, widows of Shah Mohammad. It was also asserted that the contesting respondents' ancestors were given one third share in lieu of their services which they rendered in managing the property of Sifat Bibi and Bikanat Bibi as they were widows and they had minor son Sheikh Mohammad Yasin who could not look after the cultivation." 8. Learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents submitted that on basis of evidence on record Appellate Authority has rightly returned finding that disputed land of above Gatas was an ancestral property and since there was a Kurshinama, which remained undisputed, as well as both parties belonged to one family, the land was equally distributed between them being half share. He further submitted that only on basis that certain land was acquired in auction proceeding, it would not dilute that property was ancestral as proved on basis of other evidence as well as that Bakshisnama was never proved. He placed reliance on this Court's judgment in Akshaibar v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:183688 that in case where there are concurrent findings and the same are not perverse, the same may not be disturbed under writ jurisdiction. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. There are concurrent findings of two authorities under Consolidation Act against the petitioner and as referred above this Court has in Akshaibar(supra) reiterated that concurrent finding could be disturbed only when they are perverse. Relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter:- "23. Above referred concurrent findings could be disturbed only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction. 10. There are concurrent findings of two authorities under Consolidation Act against the petitioner and as referred above this Court has in Akshaibar(supra) reiterated that concurrent finding could be disturbed only when they are perverse. Relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter:- "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. 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." 11. The crux of the case is that, petitioners have claimed their right on land in dispute mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was purchased on auction and secondly that respondents have right on land in dispute on basis of a Bakshishnama only to the extent of 1/3. 12. The crux of the case is that, petitioners have claimed their right on land in dispute mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it was purchased on auction and secondly that respondents have right on land in dispute on basis of a Bakshishnama only to the extent of 1/3. 12. The Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have placed reliance on a document dated 22.03.1881 and 19.03.1884 that since it was named in name of two widows of Sham Mohammad, therefore, it was held that it was an ancestral land. It was also noted that Lal Mohammad died when Shah Mohammad was alive and when Mohammad Raza was minor. 13. The above documents could not be disputed since there was no such evidence available on record. In 1940, a Vasiyatnama was executed, which was basis of ½ share. The claim on basis of Vasiyatnama could not be established since evidence was not sufficient. 14. In aforesaid circumstances, concurrent findings of two authorities was based on correct appreciation of evidence and there was no material or document to disbelieve such concurrent findings. 15. Therefore, in view of Akshaibar (supra) no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. 16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.