JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. None appears for the petitioners. The court takes note that this writ petition is pending since 1993 ie. for more than three decades, thereafter, in the interest of justice, decided on merits even in absence of counsel for the petitioners. 2. Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The mother of the original petitioners have initially filed a Suit under Section 229B of U.P. ZA & LR Act in the year 1984 for declaration her rights as co-tenure holder. In the said suit, issues were framed and after considering evidence on record, it was decreed by an order dated 27.03.1991. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 4. The contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Addl. Commissioner (J) which was allowed by an order dated 25.05.1992 and the suit was dismissed. The relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 5. A second appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order of first appellate court, was rejected by an order dated 05.05.1993 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, present petitioners have filed the present writ petition in the year 1993, challenging the above referred both the orders. This Court by an order dated 13.08.1993 has directed that above referred impugned orders shall remain stayed. 7. Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents submits that since there are concurrent findings of two courts against the petitioners, therefore, it may not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. He also refers relevant part of both the impugned orders which has already been mentioned in this order. 8. I have considered above submission and also perused impugned orders as well as contents of the writ petition and the grounds raised therein. For reference the grounds mentioned in the writ petition, are reproduced hereinafter: "I. Because the trial court had rightly decreed the petitioners claim for co- tenancy over the land in dispute and the opposite party have committed patent error of law in reversing the same. II. Because the opposite party no.1 has committed patent error of law in deciding the case without looking into the crucial relevant evidence on record. III. II. Because the opposite party no.1 has committed patent error of law in deciding the case without looking into the crucial relevant evidence on record. III. Because there is clear evidence on record that Gaya Prasad, who had signed the patta on behalf of the Zamindari was the authorised agent of the Zamindari Murari Singh and the view to the contrary of the opposite party no.1 is based on a patent and manifest illegality in the impugned judgment. IV. Because the impugned judgment of opposite party no.1 is vitiated by patent error of law. V. Because the compromise deed entered into between the parties before Consolidation authority a copy of which was on the record clearly established the petitioners claim of co-tenancy over the disputed property and the view to the contrary is patently illegal. VI. Because the opposite party no.1 has misread the evidence on record and also ignored material evidence from considering resulting the manifest illegality in the impugned judgment. VII. Because the opposite party no.1 has ignored the relevant provisions of the evidence Act regarding the presumptions of correctness and proof of the document more than twenty years old. VIII. Because the copy of the compromise deed before the Consolidation authority is on the record and the opposite party no.1 has misread the record and ignored material evidence and the impugned judgment is vitiated in law. IX. Because the impugned judgments are otherwise bad and contrary to law and vitiated by patent error of law and liable to be quashed." 9. As referred above, first appellate court and second appellate court has returned a finding that patta dated 07.06.1941 was not proved by any witness. It was not even signed by the Zamidar- Manni Lal. The said patta was signed by one Gaya Prasad, however, his antecedents were not on record even his power to execute the patta is also been highly disputed as well as in case patta was issued in the name of Mathura, how name of Sumeda was mentioned in the Khatauni and that it has also remain unexplained. So far as the compromise is concerned during the consolidation proceedings, there is categorical finding that there was no material or order was available in the consolidation proceeding. 10. So far as the compromise is concerned during the consolidation proceedings, there is categorical finding that there was no material or order was available in the consolidation proceeding. 10. The grounds referred in preceding paragraphs, no material was submitted that Gaya Prasad who had signed the patta has any authorization that he was an authorized agent of Zamidar Murari Singh. Presumption of old entries is always subject to contrary material and evidence that said entries were not entered in due process. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, since there are concurrent findings on facts returned by first and second appellate court and also above refer grounds mentioned in this writ petition, does not show any ground to interfere with said concurrent findings, which are based on material available and no perversity is being shown either. See Deepak Tandon & Another vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, (2019) 5 SCC 537 and also Hans Prakash Shukla and Ors vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , 2023 SCC Online SC 777. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.