JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and 14 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.15 and Sri R.R. Upadhyay learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent no.7 on caveat. 2. Under challenge are the three orders passed by the Consolidation authorities dated 04.01.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in Khata no.173 did not find favour and was rejected. This came to be assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the S.O.C by means of the order dated 2.8.2008 which was further escalated before D.D.C but by means of the order dated 30.05.2024 the D.D.C dismissed the revision. 3. Assailing the three orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property-in-question was the ancestral property coming down in the hands of the petitioners from their forefathers namely Ganeshi. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that their ancestor namely Chhedi had acquired the rights in the said property and also set up the case on the basis of lease/Kabuliyat said to have been executed by Riyasat Kudwar in 1334 fasli (1927 CE). 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the property had been ancestral and all over a period of time it came in the hands of successors and the property being ancestoral the petitioners would have a right in the property. It is also urged that upon the commencement of consolidation operations initially a compromise came to be arrived at between the parties dated 28.02.1988. Against the said compromise, the contesting private respondents preferred a time barred appeal which as per the petitioners was incorrectly allowed by the S.O.C which was assailed by the petitioners by filing a revision which came to be dismissed and the matter was brought in the first round before this Court by means of the writ petition no.741 (Cons) of 2002 (Ram Naresh vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors). It is submitted that the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 27.09.2002 and the order of remand passed by the S.O.C was upheld. It is, thereafter, that the matter was considered a fresh before the Consolidation Officer. 6. It is submitted that the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 27.09.2002 and the order of remand passed by the S.O.C was upheld. It is, thereafter, that the matter was considered a fresh before the Consolidation Officer. 6. The contention of the petitioners is that they had filed appropriate evidence establishing their case that their forefathers had the right in the property on the basis of Kabuliyat relating to 1334 fasli and thereafter plots-in-question have come down in the hands of the petitioners and this evidence has not been appropriately considered either by the Consolidation Officer and when this matter was raised in an appeal, the SOC as well as the D.D.C has also not appreciated the aforesaid contentions resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice and the rights of the petitioners in the disputed Khata no.173 has been severely prejudiced. 7. In support of his submissions, he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Gaya Din (D) through LRS. And others versus Hanuman Prasad (D) Through LRS. And others; 2001 (1) SCC 501 to buttress his submissions regarding the jurisdiction and the powers exercised by the D.D.C to state that the D.D.C had ample power to look into both the the issues of law and fact but it has been ignored, thus, D.D.C has not appropriately exercised his jurisdiction. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case of Nankoo vs DDC; 1973 RD 158 to submit that in so far as the right of succession is concerned even though a statutory tenant as defined in the Oudh Rent Act, 1886 did not have right to inherit yet by a subsequent amendment the rights were conferred on the legal heirs for a period of 5 years. The counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Chandra Shekhar vs DDC; 2021 (153) 305 RD to submit that in cases relating to ancestral succession the rights of the parties are governed as per law and on the strength of the said judgment the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that where there was primarily no dispute regarding family tree and the fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents both had come down from the common ancestor Chhedi, hence in such circumstances, the case of the petitioners for ancestral succession and rights in the property was amply established which has not been appropriately considered vitiating the three judgments under challenge. 9. Sri Upadhyay learned counsel for the private respondent no.7 refuting the aforesaid submissions has urged that the petitioners have raised vacillating this issue in the second round of litigation. The petitioners have been taking a stand in as much as if their case is confined to the Kabuliyat relating to 1334 fasli, then the same is not in the name of Chhedi. Even otherwise, over the passage of 60 years, name of none of the petitioners or their forefathers were ever recorded in the revenue records. It is further pointed out that despite having raised a plea of ancestral succession and claiming rights in the property, it was the burden of the petitioners to have established the identity of the plots, the area of plots and that with passage of time, none had changed as well as establish the ingredients which have been noticed by this Court in the case of Jagdamba Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, reported in 1984 (2) LCD Page 398 [LB] and having not lead any evidence worthwhile the three consolidation authorities have noticed all these facts while rejecting the contention of the petitioners and these being primarily questions of fact do not require any interference from this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 11. The record indicates that the petitioners had claimed ancestral rights in Khata no.173. The Consolidation Officer noticing the respective contentions of the parties had framed a specific issue no.1 regarding as to whether the petitioners had any co-tenancy rights in so far as Khata no.173 is concerned. 11. The record indicates that the petitioners had claimed ancestral rights in Khata no.173. The Consolidation Officer noticing the respective contentions of the parties had framed a specific issue no.1 regarding as to whether the petitioners had any co-tenancy rights in so far as Khata no.173 is concerned. The record further indicates that the petitioners had earlier claimed rights in the said Khata on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.1988, however, the said compromise was never accepted by the contesting private respondents and the alleged order dated 28.02.1988 was assailed by the contesting respondents by filing an appeal. In the appeal the said order of compromise was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits. It is not disputed that this order of remand attained finality once the matter had been decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 27.09.2002 passed in writ petition no.741( Cons) of 2002. 12. Be that as it may, upon the said remand the petitioners do not appear to have addressed their claim on the basis of said compromise. The plea of compromise appears to have been abandoned and the petitioners contested their claim on the basis of Kabuliyat relating to 1334 fasli 1927 CE. 13. Considering the fact that the claim of the petitioners was based on the co-tenancy rights in an ancestral property needless to say it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have proved his case on the strength of his own evidence. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in case of Jagdamba Singh (supra) wherein this Court had the occasion to consider the issue regarding a claim of co-tenancy and it laid down certain guidelines and ingredients which were required to be fulfilled. The relevant portion thereof reads as under as: “….14. It is fairly well settled that in order to entitle a party to claim cotenancy rights in the holding on the ground of its being ancestral the unbroken identity of the holding has got to be established throughout the period. If the identity has changed of the holding the claim cannot succeed. This view has been expressed in several decisions of Board of Revenue and also of this Court in the cases noted below:— (1) 1943 RD 567 (BR) Jodhia v. Bhikwa. If the identity has changed of the holding the claim cannot succeed. This view has been expressed in several decisions of Board of Revenue and also of this Court in the cases noted below:— (1) 1943 RD 567 (BR) Jodhia v. Bhikwa. (2) 1942 RD 379 (BR) Hamid Ali v. Benares Bank. (3) 1942 RD 401 (BR) Mohd. Yasin v. Mohd. Shafi. (4) 1945 RD 122 (BR) Rajaram v. Narain Singh. (5) 1969 RD 175 (BR) Abhai Narain v. Ram Manorath. (6) 1973 RD 242 (BR) Aminuddin v. Kamuruddin. (7) 1975 RD 195 (BR) Ram Narain v. Buddhu. (8) 1963 RD 37 (BR) Mahadeo Singh v. Sunder Kewat. (9) 1979 RD 125 (BR) Balwanti v. Bhaiya Ram. (10) 1983 (1) Lucknow Civil Decision, 40 (HC) Jhagroo v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation. 15. In all the aforesaid decisions it has been consistently held that in order to uphold the claim of co-tenancy rights on the ground of land being ancestral it is essential that the entire land of the holding of the common ancestor must have come down in the identical form an it must have remained unchanged and intact. It would, however, be correct to say that where as a result of survey made during settlements, the area of some plots might have decreased or increased or that some plot or plots are eliminated for some explained reason from the holding in question viz. having fallen in the bed of river due to the alluvial and deluvial action of the river or by the construction of the canal etc., then in such event it cannot be said that there is break in the identity of the holding in dispute. The slight change like elimination of certain plot or the increase or decrease in the area of certain plots for the aforesaid reasons shown would not operate to destroy the identity of the holding coming down in identical form in the family from the time of common ancestor. But in order to uphold the claim of co-tenancy rights on the ground of land being ancestral it must be established by the claimant that the holding has come down intact and in identical form that it has not been sub-divided or resettled with one or some of the heirs or with the strangers. But in order to uphold the claim of co-tenancy rights on the ground of land being ancestral it must be established by the claimant that the holding has come down intact and in identical form that it has not been sub-divided or resettled with one or some of the heirs or with the strangers. Thus, where the disputed holding has not come intact in the identical form and only some of the plots of the holding belonging to common ancestor are found included as in the present disputed holding it would not make it ancestral holding so as to give a share in it to the claimants on that ground nor it would be permissible to pick up those plots from the holding and declare them to be ancestral property and give a share in those plots to the claimant.” 14. It is taking note of the aforesaid facts that the Consolidation Officer in his judgment dated 04.01.2006 while dealing with the issue no.1 categorically noticed that no worthwhile evidence was filed by the petitioners to establish their case. The Kabuliyat of 1334 fasli also was found to be suspicious as it was not proved in accordance with law nor it could be established that the plots coming down had any semblance of identity which remained intact through the decades so that and to qualify within the ingredients as laid down by this court in Jagdamba (supra). 15. A feeble attempt was made by the petitioners to establish their case by filing an alleged list purporting to be Form-41 but that also did not inspire confidence as neither it was a certified rather it was a pencil scribed copy filed by the petitioners himself. The Consolidation Officer on the contrary found that the evidence led by the private respondent in the shape of the Khatauni (record of rights) coming down several years for several fasli years wherein the names of the contesting respondents were present and they led the evidence to establish their case. It is noticing the aforesaid that the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 04.01.2006. The same was contested and taken forward before the S.O.C as well as D.D.C who also after appraising the evidence on record echoed the same sentiments and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 16. It is noticing the aforesaid that the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 04.01.2006. The same was contested and taken forward before the S.O.C as well as D.D.C who also after appraising the evidence on record echoed the same sentiments and affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 16. In so far as the petitioners are concerned even before this Court they have not brought any material on record to indicate what evidence was led before the Consolidation authorities which have been ignored. There has been no explanation as to how the rights would be conferred on the petitioners even if at all the claim on the basis of Kabuliyat of 1334 fasli(1927 CE) is examined at the relevant time., the Oudh Rent Act, 1886 was in operation. 17. Be that as it may, if at all by any stretch of imagination, if it is considered that the predecessors of the petitioners had any right but the fact remains that upon the promulgation of the U.P.Z.A & L.R Act 1950, fresh rights were created and even on the date of vesting, there was no effort made by the petitioners to assail any of the entries which continued to remain intact in the names of the predecessors of the private respondents. This Court does not find any illegality in the orders under challenge on the basis of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. No other point has been pressed. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Consolidation Officer or the S.O.C or the D.D.C in rendering their judgments. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no applicability in the instant case. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Costs are made easy.