JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri Ganga Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5. 2. By means of the instant petition the petitioners assail the order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereby revision preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed affirming the order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which in turn upholds the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 29.10.2018. 3. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are being noticed hereinafter. The dispute relates to Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare which was recorded in the name of Sadhu, son of Sarju. It is the case of the petitioners that Sadhu had entered in a compromise with Bhagwan Prasad (who was the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) and in pursuance thereof the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was given possession and the name of Bhagwan Prasad came to be recorded in the revenue records relating to Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare. 4. It is also the case of the petitioners that the order dated 20.11.1961 was never challenged either by Sadhu or any other persons, hence the name of Bhagwan Prasad (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) continued to remain recorded. After the death of Bhagwan Prasad the name of the petitioners came to be recorded and it was also reflected in the Consolidation records wherein as per CH Form 45, the new number of Plot No.1308 was recorded as 2204. It is only in the second round of consolidation that the private respondents raised objections that the name of Bhagwan Prasad and after him, the name of the petitioners was incorrectly recorded in the revenue record. 5. Significantly, the private respondents had instituted a suit for permanent injunction wherein the present petitioners were impleaded as defendants. The suit for permanent injunction bearing R.S.No.250 of 2004 came to be dismissed on 14.02.2008. 6. It is pointed out that in the said civil suit the private respondents herein were the petitioners and they admitted that Plot No.1308 measuring 0.121 hectares situate in village Belsar, Pargaran Diksir, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda was in the possession and ownership of the private respondents. This clearly indicated that the remaining part of the land was with the present petitioners. This clearly indicated that the remaining part of the land was with the present petitioners. The present petitioners also had filed their separate suit bearing R.S.No.343 of 2004 wherein they had stated that they were the owner in possession of Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare and the trial court finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners also granted an interim order dated 03.11.2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed plot. 7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the contention of the petitioners is that the name must continue to remain recorded in respect of Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.04 decimal. It is further reflected from the record that upon the commencement of the second round of consolidation the private respondents raised an objection relating to Plot No.1308 stating that the name of the petitioners (earlier their predecessor- in-interest, namely, Bhagwan Prasad) was incorrectly recorded; inasmuch as Sadhu had executed a sale deed in favour of the private respondents (through their predecessor-in-interest) and as such the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners may be scored out. 8. The Consolidation Officer after considering the respective objections permitting the parties to lead evidence by means of his order dated 29.10.2018 found that the name of the petitioners' father Bhagwan Prasad was incorrectly recorded. It also noticed that no evidence was led regarding the alleged compromise which was said to have been arrived at between Sadhu and Bhagwan Prasad. It also noticed that there were no antecedents regarding the initiation of proceedings which culminated on the alleged compromise which was said to have been arrived at even though no orders of the Consolidation Officer were found on record. Merely on the basis of an entry in the revenue record, the petitioners have been claiming rights and for the said reasons the Consolidation Officer allowed the objections of the private respondents and ordered for deletion of the name of the petitioners. 9. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who also dismissed the appeal by means of order dated 30.07.2019. The Deputy Director of Consolidation too vide its order dated 26.10.2024 dismissed the revision. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners has approached this Court by means of the instant petition. 10. 9. The petitioners being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation who also dismissed the appeal by means of order dated 30.07.2019. The Deputy Director of Consolidation too vide its order dated 26.10.2024 dismissed the revision. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners has approached this Court by means of the instant petition. 10. Shri G. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that once the compromise has been arrived at and it was duly acted upon inasmuch as the entries were duly reflected in the revenue records prepared during consolidation operations and the same was never objected by Sadhu in his life time. The private respondents who claimed rights in the property on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Sarju but it was never proved in accordance with law and moreover the entries which had become final in the first round of consolidation could not be re- opened in the second round of consolidation and for the said reason the premise upon which the three consolidation courts have passed their respective orders are bad in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is a presumption of entries made in the revenue records and unless it was shown that the said entries were fraudulent till then they continue to operate. 12. In the instant case, there was no material on record to indicate that the compromise and the orders passed by the consolidation authorities on the basis of the said compromise did not suffer from any error, more so when Sadhu in his life time never assailed the same and the said entries continued to remain recorded for decades and such settled entries could not have been ignored or directed to be set aside merely at the behest of the private respondents who themselves could not establish their own rights on the basis of the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Sadhu. 13. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the three consolidation authorities have erred in placing the burden on the petitioners whereas it was the burden of the private respondent to first establish the execution of their sale deed and then that the order of compromise or the compromise itself was bad in the eyes of law and moreover there was no explanation as to what prevented the private respondents to raise any objection in respect of the entries in the name of father of the petitioners in the first round of consolidation. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the orders impugned are bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 14. Shri Nagendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.5 has pointed out that the three consolidation courts have found that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Bhagwan Prasad had manipulated the revenue records and got their name incorporated. The revenue records were meticulously considered by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation who personally examined the original records and thereafter they have recorded the finding of fact that there was clear over writing over the entries and there was no material found to indicate as to how the said compromise was arrived at and in what circumstances the said compromise could be give effect to. 15. It is urged that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the three consolidation courts in such circumstances the writ petition being concluded by concurrent finding is not liable to be entertained and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 17. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the first round of consolidation, a compromise was arrived at between Sadhu and Bhagwan Prasad and it is in this context that the name of Bhagwan Prasad came to be recorded in respect of Plot No.1308 measuring 0.00016 hectare. In case if this plea is examined, it would reveal that the petitioners have not brought on record the said compromise which is the basis/source of title of Bhagwan Prasad (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners). Neither the compromise has been placed on record nor the order passed by the consolidation authorities who verified the said compromise is on record. In case if this plea is examined, it would reveal that the petitioners have not brought on record the said compromise which is the basis/source of title of Bhagwan Prasad (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners). Neither the compromise has been placed on record nor the order passed by the consolidation authorities who verified the said compromise is on record. 18. Another aspect that needs to be seen that in case if any compromise had been arrived at as stated by the petitioners then it was necessary to explain that prior to that compromise what was property and the plot of which Bhagwan Prasad was the recorded tenure holder. It is not disputed that Bhagwan Prasad got right in the Plot No.1308 (M) only on the basis of the said compromise. It is also not disputed that Bhagwan Prasad and Sadhu were not related to each other, hence there was no way the alleged compromise could have been in the shape of a family settlement which is only permissible if the parties had preexisting rights which apparently is not borne out from the record nor it is the case of the petitioners, throughout. 19. In absence of the aforesaid, there was no logic for Sadhu or Bhagwan Prasad to have entered in a compromise. It could be understood if the father of the petitioners, namely, Bhagwan Prasad had some property and so also Sarju and there was a dispute hence, to ease out their difference, they entered in a compromise. As already noticed above, it has no where pleaded in the writ petition that Bhagwan Prasad had any property of his own nor any such pleading or evidence was led before the three consolidation courts. Even though the name of the petitioners and prior to them their predecessor was recorded in respect of Plot No.1308 (M) but it could not be indicated as to how the entry came to be recorded in the first place. 20. As already noticed above, neither the said compromise was filed before any of the consolidation authorities nor there is an order passed by the consolidation court accepting the said compromise and merely on the basis of entries which continued in the revenue records, the petitioners have laid their claim. 21. 20. As already noticed above, neither the said compromise was filed before any of the consolidation authorities nor there is an order passed by the consolidation court accepting the said compromise and merely on the basis of entries which continued in the revenue records, the petitioners have laid their claim. 21. It will be relevant to point out that the proceedings under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are substantive proceedings wherein after taking evidence, right and title of the party is decided by the consolidation authorities. 22. In the instant case, this basic premise is missing and the three consolidation courts have clearly recorded that the petitioners and prior to them their father Bhagwan Prasad could not establish his right. This Court had the benefit of perusing the reasoning in the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein the two authorities have examined the original records and found that the old plot number was recorded entirely in the name of Sadhu, son of Sarju. There appeared to be certain over writing in respect of Plot No.1308 as well as the area mentioned therein. The contemporaneous documents were also examined including CH Form 41 and 45 and it was found that by resorting to manipulation the name of Bhagwan Prasad was got incorporated in respect of Plot No.1308 (M) measuring 0.00016 hectare. Once the consolidation authorities had examined the original record and recorded finding of fact which has been affirmed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be loath to disturb the same. However, this is subject to an exception i.e. in case if the petitioners could point out any perversity, then this Court would have ample jurisdiction to reach out to remove such illegality. However, no perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners. 23. Admittedly, the premise from which the petitioners are claiming rights is based on the compromise which as noticed above was never brought on record coupled with the fact that it could also not be explained that in absence of any property with Bhagwan Prasad under what circumstances such a compromise could have been arrived at between Sarju and Bhagwan Prasad. Admittedly, the premise from which the petitioners are claiming rights is based on the compromise which as noticed above was never brought on record coupled with the fact that it could also not be explained that in absence of any property with Bhagwan Prasad under what circumstances such a compromise could have been arrived at between Sarju and Bhagwan Prasad. Even if at all, the said compromise for the first time created rights in favour of Bhagwan Prasad in respect of Plot No.1308 (M)0.00016 hectare. In such a situation unless and until the said compromise was duly registered in terms of the India Registration Act, no right could have been conferred on Bhagwan Prasad. For this reason also the theory as set up by the petitioners does not sound convincing and it has been accordingly repelled by the three consolidation courts. 24. As far as the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners that the private respondents could not establish their right as their sale deed was also not proved, is a different issue since it is not disputed by the petitioners that Sarju was the owner of the entire Plot No.1308. The certified copy of the sale deed was placed on record of the consolidation courts even though it has been observed that the last two pages of the said sale deed were photocopies, however, this sale deed which has been relied upon by private respondents was never assailed or challenged by Bhagwan Prasad or the present petitioners. Hence this does not help the petitioner. 25. Moreover, the reference made to the two suits which were purely for the relief of injunction and in the said suits the issue primarily was based on possession and not title. As it is evident from the record of the writ petition that the suit for injunction filed by the private respondents was dismissed whereas the petitioners have merely indicated that in the civil suit filed by them there was an interim order but what is the status of the suit thereafter uptodate information has not been disclosed nor mentioned. As it is evident from the record of the writ petition that the suit for injunction filed by the private respondents was dismissed whereas the petitioners have merely indicated that in the civil suit filed by them there was an interim order but what is the status of the suit thereafter uptodate information has not been disclosed nor mentioned. Even otherwise, a suit for injunction cannot partake the nature of a title suit especially once the consolidation proceedings had commenced and the matter was being adjudicated by the consolidation officer in terms of the objections filed under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which is akin to a title proceedings hence it would naturally have a precedence over the suit for injunction simplicitor. 26. In light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the finding recorded by the three consolidation authorities do not suffer from any palpable error which may persuade this Court to entertain the petition which is being dismissed at the admission stage itself. Costs are made easy.