JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri R.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. All the above referred writ petitions are arising out of seven objections filed under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the ‘Act of 1953’). 3. Three objections filed by Guru Dayal were based on his claim on basis of unauthorised possession (Unadhikar Kabza). The Consolidation Officer rejected his claim by a reasoned order that his possession could be considered only upto 4-5 years, which could not be sufficient to allow his claim. The said finding was upheld by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and thereafter by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. Guru Dayal has not challenged the above referred orders before this Court, therefore, finding returned against him has attained finality. 5. Remaining four objections were essentially based on inheritance or on a Bainama by one of the objector. 6. All the Courts under the ‘Act of 1953’ have accepted entries of 1348 Fasli recorded in the name of Rameshwr Din and his grandson Ajab Sukh (son of predeceased son namely Jeet Lal) and accordingly shares were allotted. 7. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has modified the allotment of shares and thereafter the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further modified the shares. The undisputed pedigree is a follows: 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly submitted that if the entries of 1348 Fasli are considered to be valid, they may not have a good case and in case said entries are considered to be doubtful and without any basis, its consequence will follow i.e. shares will be required to be redetermined. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is not possible that, if Jeet Lal was predeceased son of Rameshwar Din, then, on his death his share has to be devolved back to his father i.e. Rameshwar Din and accordingly inherited to his remaining two other sons i.e Ram Das and Ram Dayal and accordingly shares were required to be redetermined and reallotted. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that there are concurrent findings so far as entries of 1348 Fasli is concerned. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that there are concurrent findings so far as entries of 1348 Fasli is concerned. The witnesses have not disputed aforesaid entries and shares were rightly modified, firstly by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and subsequently by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and there is not much dispute on said shares. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. In the present case all three Courts under the ‘Act of 1953’ has considered, the entries of 1348 Fasli to be correct and accordingly shares were allotted with certain modifications at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and later by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 13. Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2015) 1 SCC 553 has reiterated that concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed in a writ jurisdiction except in extraordinary circumstances such as finding being patently perverse or Authority has acted beyond jurisdiction. 14. The findings returned by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as entries of 1348 Fasli is concerned are relevant and same are reproduced hereinafter: 15. Above referred concurrent findings have specifically rendered that entries in 1348 Fasli were correct and during proceedings there was not much opposition to it and shares were accordingly allotted and rightly modified to some extent. 16. The principle of Estopple and Acquiescence were also rightly applied as held in Krishnanand (supra). 17. To cause any interference in concurrent findings, there must be a finding being patently perverse. However, no circumstances is being brought into the notice of this Court as to how the findings are patently perverse, rather it appears that parties have not much objected to the revenue entries of 1348 Fasli. 18. On basis of documentary evidence such as ‘Rent Receipts,’ the Consolidation Officer has held that in 1348 Fasli land in dispute was in the name of Rameshwar Din and Ajab Sukh and that it was an admitted case of rival parties on other land along with their names, Ramgopal and Vanshgopal were also recorded, who admittedly belonged to their family and were holding land separately even before 1348 Fasli, which indicates that there was a prior family settlement and all arguments against it were rejected. 19. 19. It was also rightly held that entries of 1348 Fasli has presumption to be correct, in absence of any substantive material as well as long standing entries could not be disturbed on vague assertion. 20. No objection was taken, prior to consolidation proceedings. Ajab Sukh was a co-tenure holder and has paid rent regularly, therefore, claim of all objectors was hit by principle of estoppel and acquiescence and since there is no material that such findings are against the principle that there can be no estoppel against law. (See Krishna Rai (D) through Lrs & Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar & Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 713 and Beni Prasad (D) through LRs. Vs. Durga Devi, (2023) 6 SCC 708 . 21. The aforesaid finding was upheld by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and modified allotment of shares to some extent. 22. In the aforesaid circumstances, no ground exist to interfere with the impugned orders since I do not find any legal error, perversity or patent illegality in the concurrent findings of three Courts under ‘Act of 1953’. 23. All writ petitions are dismissed. 24. The Court takes note that these writ petitions are pending since 1980 and 1984 respectively and it took more than four decades to decide and for that this Court extends apology to litigants. Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.19 of 2022 and Civil Misc. Stay Application No.20 of 2022. On the basis of above order, there is no need to pass any order.