JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Mohd. Taufiq Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 3 and Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 19/Ajay Kumar Verma. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 08.09.1992 passed by the respondent No. 3/Consolidation Officer, Nighasan, District- Kheri (in short "C.O.") in Case No. 13 (Gurvachan v. Prithvi Pal and others) instituted under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") and the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 2/Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District- Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "S.O.C.") in Appeal Nos. 664/2017541043000158 (Mukta Prasad v. Prithvi Pal and others) and 815/13 (Munijar Lal and others v. Prithvi Pal and others), which were instituted under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 as also the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District- Lakhimpur Kheri (in short "D.D.C.") in Revision No. 446/202254104300001211 (Mukta Prasad v. Nand Kishore and others) instituted under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. 3. Vide impugned order dated 08.09.1992, the C.O. adjudicated the claim of Gurvachan, who claimed his rights over the property of one Kamta Prasad and others based upon a 'Will' and succession. The order dated 08.09.1992 indicates that Gurvachan failed to prove the 'Will'. The order dated 08.09.1992 further indicates that Gurvachan failed to prove his case and accordingly the C.O. directed the revenue official concerned to record the names of Prithvi Pal s/o Punchparag and Iqbal Bahadur, Rakshapal & Jagat Narain, all sons of Hazari Lal in the revenue records. This order further indicates that Prithvi Pal would be entitled to 1/2 share of the property of late Kamta and Iqbal Bahadur and others would be entitled to 1/6 share of said property. This order further indicates that before the C.O., Prithvi Pal and others stated that they are the actual legal heirs of Kamta. The C.O., after considering the evidence on record including the statement(s) of one Chiddu s/o Kalika Prasad/DW-1, one Maiku s/o Bilas/PW-3 and Bhagwandeen s/o Makka/PW-1 held that Prithvi Pal and Hazari Lal, being cousin and legal heirs of Kamta and as Hazari Lal has already died, his sons would be entitled to land/property of Kamta. The C.O., after considering the evidence on record including the statement(s) of one Chiddu s/o Kalika Prasad/DW-1, one Maiku s/o Bilas/PW-3 and Bhagwandeen s/o Makka/PW-1 held that Prithvi Pal and Hazari Lal, being cousin and legal heirs of Kamta and as Hazari Lal has already died, his sons would be entitled to land/property of Kamta. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.09.1992 reads as under:- " bu c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g fl) gS fd dkerk mejko dk bdsyk yM+dk gS cYnso mldk HkkbZ ugha Fkk dkerk dks Hkwfe futkbZ vius ukuk ls fefy Fkh dkerk lk0 Qksr gqvk 'ktjk [kku ds vuqlkj izFkk iky o gtkjh yky crkSj ppsjs vkfn okfjl gksrs gS gtkjh yky dh e`R;q gks xbZ gS mlds LFkku ij mlds yM+ds bdcky cgknqj o j{kiky o txr ujk;u iq= gtkjh yky okfjl gS rnuqlkj ckn fcUnw 3 fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vk/kkj o"kZ [kkrk la0&71 xzke ccqjh o [kkrk la0&417 xzke /kkSjgjk ls dkerk iq= mejko e`rdk dks ccqjh dk uke [kkfjt djds mlds LFkku ij izFkh iky iq= iapijkx o bdcky cgknqj o j{kiky o txr ujk;u iq=x.k gtkjh yky fu0 foyok okfjn gky ccqjh dk uke crkSj okfjl vafdr gks vkifRr xqjopu fujLr gks foHkktu izFkh iky 1@2 va'k bdcky cgknqj vkfn 1@6 va'k izR;sd fd;k tk;s bl cVokjs esa pdcUnh ds ckgj dh Hkwfe 'kkfey u gksxhA i=koyh okn veynjken nkf[ky nQ-rj gksA " 4. The petitioner alleging himself to be the 'Bhanja' (nephew/sister's son) of late Kamta thereafter filed an appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay registered as Case No. 664/2017541043000158 (Mukta Prasad v. Prithvi Pal and others). This appeal was filed after delay of about 19 years. Another appeal No. 815/13 (Munijar Lal and others v. Prithvi Pal and others) was also instituted. Both these appeals were rejected by the S.O.C. vide order dated 25.06.2015 observing therein that the delay has not been property explained. 5. The order dated 25.06.2015 passed by S.O.C. was challenged by preferring Revision Nos. 541 of 2015 and 544 of 2015, which were allowed by the D.D.C. vide order dated 04.07.2017 and the matter was remanded back to S.O.C. for deciding the appeals on merits. 6. In terms of the order dated 04.07.2017, the S.O.C, considered both the aforesaid appeals and after considering the relevant material available on record dismissed the appeals vide order dated 04.05.2022. 6. In terms of the order dated 04.07.2017, the S.O.C, considered both the aforesaid appeals and after considering the relevant material available on record dismissed the appeals vide order dated 04.05.2022. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.05.2022 on reproduction reads as under:- " eSus mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds ekSf[kd rdksZa dks lqukA voj ,oa vihyh; U;k;ky; dh i=kofy;ksa ij miyC/k lk{;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k] ftlls Li"V gS fd fookn dkerk izlkn ¼e`rd½ ds fof/kd okfjl fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esa gSA [kkrsnkj dkerk izlkn ¼e`rd½ ds uke vk/kkj o"kZ [krkSuh xzke ccqjh esa [kkrk la[;k 71 o xzke /kkSjgjk esa [kkrk la[;k 417 ntZ gSA rLnhd [krkSuh ds dkerk ¼e`rd½ crk;s x;s] muds okfjl i'Fohiky iq= iap ijkx fuoklh fcyok crkSj okfjl pkpk crk;k x;k vkSj i`Fohiky ds lxs HkkbZ gtkjh yky ds yM+ds bdcky cgknqj] j{kiky o txr ujk;u dk uke i`Fohiky ds lkFk ojklru ntZ gksuk crk;k x;kA voj U;k;ky; esa ,d vkifRr xqjopu iq= cYnso us bl dFku ds lkFk izLrqr dh x;h fd olh;r ds vk/kkj ij mldk uke e`rd dkerk ds LFkku ij ntZ dj fn;k tk;A xqjopu flag voj U;k;ky; esa vius gd esa fu"ikfnr olh;r dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgus ds dkj.k voj U;k;ky; }kjk dkerk ds LFkku ij foi{khx.k dk uke dk uke crkSj okfjl ntZ fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlds fo:) vihydrkZx.k }kjk ;s vihy izLrqr dj jgk gS fd vihydrkZx.k dkerk ¼e`rd½ dh lxh cgu ds iq= gS vkSj og dkerk ¼e`rd½ ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh gSA bl lEcU/k esa buds }kjk voj U;k;ky; esa dksbZ pkjktksbZ ugha dh x;h gSA vc vihy Lrj ij vihydrkZx.k }kjk vius dks dkerk ¼e`rd½ dk okfjl lxk HkkUtk dgk tk jgk gSA bl lEcU/k esa vihydrkZx.k dh vksj ls vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls muds dFkuksa dks cy feyrk gksA voj U;k;ky; }kjk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS og i{kksa dks lqudj rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa fdlh izdkj ds la'kks/ku fd;s tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh gSA rnuqlkj izLrqr nksuks vihysa fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr nksuksa vihysa fujLr dh tkrh gSA ;gh vkns'k vihy la[;k 815@13 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQrj dh tk;sA " 7. It is apparent from the above quoted portion of the order dated 04.05.2022 that the appellate authority/S.O.C. categorically observed that the appellant namely Mukta Prasad (petitioner herein) failed to prove his case by producing/adducing appropriate evidence to prove the fact that he is 'Bhanja' (nephew/sister's son) of late Kamta. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed the Revision No. 446/202254104300001211 (Mukta Prasad v. Nand Kishore and others) challenging the order dated 04.05.2022, whereupon, the revisional authority/D.D.C. affirmed the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by S.O.C. vide order impugned dated 23.11.2023. 8. The petitioner thereafter filed the Revision No. 446/202254104300001211 (Mukta Prasad v. Nand Kishore and others) challenging the order dated 04.05.2022, whereupon, the revisional authority/D.D.C. affirmed the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by S.O.C. vide order impugned dated 23.11.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.11.2023 on reproduction reads as under:- " eSus mHk;i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.kksa }kjk izLrqr fyf[kr ,oa ekSf[kd rdksaZ dk vuqJo.k fd;k rFkk voj U;k;ky; dh okn i=kofy;ksa dk lE;d vuq'khyu fd;kA mHk;i{kksa }kjk izLrqr rdksZa o voj U;k;ky; dh okn i=kofy;ksa ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ls Li"V gS fd iz'uxr okn esa eq[; fookn e`rd dkerk iq= mejko ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkj ds fu/kkZj.k ds lEcU/k esa gSA bl lEcU/k esa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; es o"kZ 1973 ls okndkfjrk foi{khx.kksa o xqjopu ds e/; xfreku jgh gS] ftlesa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 08-09-1992 dks i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{;ksa ij okn dk fuLrkj.k xq.k&nks"k ij foi{khx.kksa ds i{k esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk nks vihysa cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh U;k;ky; es ;ksftr dh x;h] ftUgs foyEc ds fcUnq ij fnukad 25-06-2015 dks fujLr dj fn;k x;kA bu vkns'kksa ds fo:) fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa eqDrk izlkn iq= uUn fd'kksj o equhtj yky vkfn iq=x.k ekSthyky }kjk bl U;k;ky; es i`Fkd&i`Fkd nks fuxjkfu;ka ;ksftr dh x;h] ftUgs fnukad 04-07-2017 dks Lohdkj dj okn dk fuLrkj.k xq.k&nks"k ij fd;s tkus gsrq cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh U;k;ky; esa okn izR;kofrZr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dks vius dFku ds lEcU/k esa lk{; vkfn izLrqr djus dk i;kZIr volj vihy Lrj ij iznku fd;k x;kA izR;korZu ds i'pkr cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 04-05-2022 dks fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk izLrqr nksuksa vihysa xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fujLr dj nh x;h] ftlds fo:) ek= ,d fuxjkuh eqDrk izlkn }kjk ;ksftr dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZx.k Lo;a dks e`rd dkerk dh cgu dk iq= dgrs gq, lxs HkkUts ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe es viuk uke vafdr fd;s tkus dh ekax dh x;h gSA ;|fi o"kZ 1973 ls fookfnr Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa izkjEHk okndkfjrk esa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vfUre vkns'k fnukad 08-09-1992 rd fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dh ekrk vFkok e`rd dkerk dh dfFkr cgu }kjk dHkh Hkh dksbZ vkifRr mRrjkf/kdkjh ds :i esa izLrqr ugh dh x;hA tcfd fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr Lo;a dh vihy eseks dh /kkjk&2 o 3 esa ;g dFku izLrqr fd;k fd og fookfnr Hkwfe ds Lokeh e`rd dkerk fuxjkuhdrkZ ds lkFk gh jgrs Fks rFkk fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk dkerk ds lkFk feydj d'f"k vkfn dk;Z fd;k tkrk Fkk rFkk fookfnr Hkwfe ij mldk gh dCtk gS] dkerk dh cgu o mldh eka txjkuh dh e'R;q dkerk ds thoudky esa gh gks x;h FkhA blls Li"V gS fd pdcUnh vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; esa bruh nh?kZ vof/k esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk dksbZ vkifRr izLrqr u fd;k tkuk rFkk izFke ckj o"kZ 2013 es iz'uxr vkns'k fnukad 08-09-1992 ds fo:) ,di{kh; vkns'k dk dFku izLrqr djrs gq, vihy ;ksftr dh x;h] ftls foyEc ds fcUnq ij vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;k x;kA rnqijkUr bl U;k;ky; es izLrqr fuxjkfu;ksa dks foyEc e"kZ.k dk ykHk iznku djrs gq, okn dk fuLrkj.k xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij fd;s tkus gsrq vihyh; U;k;ky; esa izR;kofrZr fd;k x;kA bl lEcU/k esa ;g rF; /;krO; gS fd pdcUnh vf/kdkjh U;k;ky; esa tc fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dh vksj ls dksbZ vkifRr gh ugha izLrqr dh x;h Fkh] rks muds fo:) ,di{kh; vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk iz'u gh ugha mRiUu gksrk gS ,oa u gh muds fo:) dksbZ vkns'k gh ikfjr fd;k x;kA fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; Hkh v/khUkLFk Lrj ij izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls mudk fookfnr Hkwfe ij dCtk o n[ky fl) gksrk gks rFkk e`rd dkerk ds lkFk mudh cgu dk uke fdlh izekf.kd vfHkys[k esa vafdr gks] ftlls fuxjkuhdrkZ ds dFku dks cy izkIr gksrkA fuxjkuhdrkZ vius dFku dks fl) djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgs gSaA bl izdkj fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk fujk/kkj rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr nksuksa vihyksa dks fujLr dj cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk dksbZ =qfV ugha dh x;h gSA blfy, fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa }kjk vk/kkjghu rF;ksa ij izLrqr dFku dks Lohdkj dj okn dks iqu% izR;korZu fd;k tkuk vuko';d ,oa vkSfpR;ghu okndkfjrk dks izksRlkgu fn;k tkuk gksxk] tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fof/klEer ugha gSA rnuqlkj fuxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vkns'k gqvk fd& vkns'k fuxjkuh eqDrk izlkn vk/kkjghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA i=koyh ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh lafpr vfHkys[kkxkj gksA " 9. The observations made by the revisional authority in the order dated 23.11.2023 also indicates that the petitioner failed to prove his case by producing/adducing appropriate evidence. 10. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present petition has been filed before this Court challenging the orders impugned dated 08.09.1992, 04.05.2022 and 23.11.2023. 11. Upon due consideration of the observations made by C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. in the impugned orders dated 08.09.1992, 04.05.2022 and 23.11.2023, respectively, on being asked as to whether any evidence was produced/adduced so as to prove the fact that the petitioner is the 'Bhanja' (nephew/sister's son) of late Kamta, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to indicate any document in this regard. 12. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds that the concurrent findings recorded by C.O., S.O.C. and D.D.C. in the impugned orders dated 08.09.1992, 04.05.2022 and 23.11.2023, respectively, are just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders so as to cost.