JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondents. 2. This is a case arising out of a proceedings under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Acts, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1953'). 3. Father of original petitioners filed an objection that name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was wrongly mentioned in revenue records, despite he was in possession over land in dispute. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.12.1972 has accepted objections filed on behalf of father of original petitioners and name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was expunged from revenue records. Relevant finding is mentioned hereinafter: ^^cSukek 1375 Q0 esa fnukad 24-02-68 dks fn;k x;k gSA 1375 Q0 esa jkevpy oxZ 9 ntZ FkkA blfy, tkudh dh vksj ls nLrkost cSukek esa Hkh ;g ugha fy[kk fd og Lo;a bl Hkwfe ij dkfot Fkk vkSj dzssrk x.k dks Hkh dkfot djk fn;k gS cfYd fy[kk gS fd cSukek nkj dks pkfg, fd vkjkth futkbZ eqoSnk ij dkfot n[khy gksdj iw.kZr;% nj iqLr ekax Hkqxr djsa vkSj viuk uke dkxtkr ljdkjh esa ntZ djk ysos] cSukek nkj dk 1375 Q0 ls vkt rd dCtk gqvk ugha D;ksafd blds izek.k esa mUgksaus ,d Hkh xokg ugha fn;k u dksbZ [kljk esa gh dCts dk bUnzkt gSA ftlls cSukek nkj dk dCtk izekf.kr gks ldsA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gaw fd tkudh 1365 Q0 ls gh xkao NksM+ dj pyk x;k vkSj mlds lkeus dh jkevpy dk dCtk gks x;k FkkA tc mldk [ksr fudyrk le>k rks fj'rsnkjksa ds gd esa cSukek dj fn;k ftudk dksbZ dCtk n[ky ugha gqvkA cSukek ds nkf[ky [kkfjt dk tgka rd iz'u gS tc mudk dCtk gh ugha gS vkSj dCts ds vk/kkj ij jkevpy oknh bl Hkwfe dk igys gh lhjnkj gksus dk vf/kdkjh gks x;k gS rc nkf[ky [kkfjt dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk vr% okn fcanq 1 LohdkjkRed rFkk okn fcanq 2 udkjkRed fuLrkfjr fd, tkrs gSaA** (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 27.2.1973. Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 27.2.1973. It was held that Janki (original respondent no.2) has executed a sale deed in favour of other respondents and that land was in his possession and it was handed over to vendees also. Entry made in revenue records that Janki was "Farar" was rejected on basis of documents available on record. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: ^^Hkwfe ys[k fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr vly dkLrdkj dks i&d 10 dh fVIi.kh tkjh djuk vfuok;Z gSA bl rjg fjLiksUMsaV us i{k esa dCts dk bUnzkt fcuk i&d 10 dh fVIi.kh tkjh fd, gj QthZ o xyr lkfcr gqvk rFkk bl QthZ bUnzkt ds vk/kkj ij fjLiksUMsaV dk uke vkjkth futkbZ ij oxZ 9 esa xyr <+ax ls ntZ fd;k x;k gSA fjLiksUMsaV us 1 lky dh flpkbZ dh jlhn izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk yxku dh jlhn izLrqr fd;k gS fdUrq fjLiksUMsaV us gj lky ds flpkbZ dh jlhn rFk mlds eglwy flapkbZ ds yxku dh jlhn izLrqr djds ;g vkifRr ugha fd;k gS fd fjLiksUMsaV dk dCtk vkjkth futkbZ ij yxkrkj gSA Hkwfe ys[k fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr fjLiksMsaV dk dCtk rFkk oxZ 9 dk banzt QthZ lkfcr gqvk vkSj tkudh ds c;ku ls Li"V gqvk fd vihykUV dks cSukek ds vk/kkj ij ekSds ij dCtk ns fn, gSA rFkk tkudh us cSukek dh oS/kkfudrk dks Hkh vnkyr esa vk djds lkfcr fd;k gSA bl rjg fo}ku p0v0 us xyr <+ax ls jkevpy fjLiksUMsaV dks QthZ o xyr dCtk o oxZ 9 ds vk/kkj ij lhjnkj djkj fn;lk gS vkSj vihykUV ds cSukek dks oS/kkfud ugha ekuk gS cSukek cgd vihykUV oS/kkfud lkfcr gqvk rFkk vihy rnuqlkj Lohdkj dh xbZA** (Emphasis Supplied) 6. Aforesaid order was challenged by father of original petitioners by way of filing a revision. However, it was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Aforesaid order was challenged by father of original petitioners by way of filing a revision. However, it was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was held that Janki was not 'Faraar', and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- ^^tckc nsrs gq, foi{kh us dgk fd /kkjk 145 dk fu.kZ; tkudh ds i{k esa gqvk 31-05-50 ds ckn dksbZ eqdnek csn[kyh dk ugha gqvkA /kkjk 145 ds eqdnek jkevpy fuxjkuhdRrkZ xokg Fkk /kkjk 61 ds eqdneksa 14-03-49 dks tkudh ds i{k esa fu.kZ; gqvk fuxjkuhdRrkZ dh vihy [kkfjt gqbZA 20-02-71 dks jkevpy us tks tkudh ds fo:) c;ku fn;k Fkk mldh udy /kkjk 229 ch ds eqdnes gSaA dkLrdkj tkudh Fks 16] 17 lky gq, tkudh us [ksr O;; dj fn;k vius fj'rsnkj dks QthZ cSukek fd;k] vr% Qjkjh dh ckr xyr gSA p0v0 ds ;gka tkudh dk O;ku gqvk vr% tkudh Qjkj dSls gSA vxj tkudh Qjkj Fks rks ftldh flfoy e`R;q ekuh tkuh pkfg, rks tkudh dks oSls dk oSlk Qjhd D;ksa cuk;k x;k tgka rd dCts ds banzktkr gS og dHkh&dHkh ds gS vkSj Hkwys[k fu;ekoyh ds fo:) gSA vxj cgl ds fy, ekuk tk; fd fuxjkuhdRrkZ dkfct gS rks fuxjkuhdRrkZ dk mDr c;ku muds ds'k dks lekIr dj nsrk gS vkSj ijfeflo dCts ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 210 esa fuxjkuhdRrkZ dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha feysxkA eS l0c0v0p0 ds fu.kZ; vkSj fuxjkuhdRrkZ ds rdZ ls lger gwa tkudh Qjkj ugha gS cSukek Bhd gS tkudh us Lo;a dCtk fMyhoj djus dh ckr dgh gS fuxjkuhdRrkZ ds i{k esa dCts dk bUnzkt fu;fer ugha gS mlls mls dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha fey ldrk l0c0v0p0 dk fu.kZ; esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Aforesaid two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively are challenged in present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that original respondent no.2, Janki was recorded as 'Faraar' in revenue records, therefore, he was not in possession over the land in dispute. Sale deed executed in favour of other respondents would not have any legal consequence since possession of land in dispute in pursuance of aforesaid sale deed was not handed over as vendor (Janki) was not in possession over land in dispute and he was rightly recorded as 'Faraar' in revenue records. Sale deed executed in favour of other respondents would not have any legal consequence since possession of land in dispute in pursuance of aforesaid sale deed was not handed over as vendor (Janki) was not in possession over land in dispute and he was rightly recorded as 'Faraar' in revenue records. Counsel for petitioners referred the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer in this regard that recital of sale deed states that vendee would take steps for possession. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that documents relied upon by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have no legal basis since it does not prove that original respondent no.2 (Janki) was in possession over land in dispute. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that findings returned by two authorities i.e. Appellate as well as Revisional Authority that Janki was not 'Faraar' were based on various documents, therefore, could not be considered to be a perverse finding. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was a dispute between Ram Achal (father of original petitioner no.1) and Janki (respondent no.2) under Section 229 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as in proceedings undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Janki was found in possession over land in dispute, therefore, entries made in the revenue records that Janki was 'Faraar' was contray to the documents on record. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 13. Issues which have cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether name of Janki, respondent no.2 in revenue records was correctly recorded as 'Faraar' or not and as to whether there would be any effect of certain proceedings, undertaken between Ram Achal (father of petitioner no.1) and Janki, respondent no.2 in the present case qua to possession over land in dispute. 14. As referred above, since there are two concurrent findings against the petitioners, therefore, this Court could interfere only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction and in this regard relevant paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 are mentioned hereinafter: "12. As referred above, since there are two concurrent findings against the petitioners, therefore, this Court could interfere only when they are perverse or beyond jurisdiction and in this regard relevant paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 are mentioned hereinafter: "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." 15. The findings returned by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority are mainly based on documents on record which are not under dispute. There were two proceedings between the parties, one under Section 229 of the Act of 1950, and another under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in both the proceedings Janki, respondent no.2 was found in possession over the land in dispute. 16. Aforesaid findings could not be contradicted since no documents to oppose the same were placed on record. 17. There were two proceedings between the parties, one under Section 229 of the Act of 1950, and another under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and in both the proceedings Janki, respondent no.2 was found in possession over the land in dispute. 16. Aforesaid findings could not be contradicted since no documents to oppose the same were placed on record. 17. The other argument was in regard to recital of sale deed that vendee has to take steps for possession over land in dispute and that the Consolidation Officer has held that vendee was not in possession over the land in dispute, when he executed the sale deed which is not on record. 18. As referred above, it has not been disputed that proceedings under Section 229 of the Act of 1950 as well as under Section 145 Cr.P.C. were undertaken wherein Janki was found in possession over land in dispute. 19. Recital of the sale deed would only indicate that further proceedings in pursuance of sale deed has to be undertaken by the vendee and not by the vendor. 20. There was no entry of Form P.A.10, therefore, no benefit of it could be granted to the petitioners. The irrigation slips filed on behalf of petitioners were not sufficient to prove of their possession, since there was a break in continuity. No other documents were found sufficient to prove the case of petitioners rather on basis of documents available claim of the respondents was found proved. 21. Judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioners of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh and others v. Smt. Harbans Kaur, AIR 1993 P & H 186 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whereas the judgment cited by counsel for the respondents of this Court in Motil Lal v. D.D.C. & Ors, 2023:AHC197946 would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as it was held that initial burden to prove that Form P.A.10 was properly prepared and was served on real Kashtkar, was on petitioner but from records and orders, it would be evident that the petitioners have failed to discharge initial burden of prove that Form P.A.10 was properly prepared in accordance with due procedure. 22. 22. In view of the above discussion, since the findings returned by the Appellate as well as Revisional Authority, were based on materials available on record and there is no document on record or any other material to suggest that there is perversity in the impugned orders. 23. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.