JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Facts of present case in brief are that -:

(a) Original petitioners and original respondents were recorded in basic year on land in dispute as co-sharer.

(b) The petitioners filed an objection during consolidation proceedings claiming to be exclusively right on land in dispute on basis of entry being made in 1356-F and 1359-F, therefore, claimed to be adivasi and sirdar by virtue of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "Act, 1950").

(c) The Consolidation Officer has allowed the objections of petitioners by an order dated 16.04.1974.

(d) An appeal filed by respondents no. 6 and 7 was allowed vide order dated 02.04.1975. A revision thereof filed by petitioners was dismissed on 29.10.1976.

2. Sri Vishnu Singh, learned counsel for petitioner has referred relevant findings returned by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority that said Authorities have misread the evidence on record.

3. Learned counsel has further submitted that only basis on which claim of contesting respondents was accepted was outcome of a suit filed by erstwhile occupant of land wherein both petitioners and respondents were parties and claim of plaintiff that both petitioner and respondents have no right on land in dispute was rejected and it was wrongly interpreted by the two Authorities that right of petitioners as well as contesting respondents were on same footing, whereas on basis of revenue entries, only petitioners were recorded as occupant at the time of U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act came into force and accordingly, they became adivasi and later on sirdar. No such right was accrued to contesting respondents.

4. In this regard learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer in its order and relevant part thereof is quoted below -:

^^ijarq dkxth lcwr ls mn; 'kadj vkfn dk dCtk ugha lkfcr gksrk vr% oa'kjkt ds c;ku i= ek= ls mn; 'kadj vkfn /kkjk 210 ds varxZr lhjnkj ugha gks ldrsA D;ksafd mudk dCtk fdlh dkxth lcwr ls lkfcr ugha gksrk mn; 'kadj us Lo;a c;ku fd;k fd yksx muds gks'k ds igys ls vyx gSA vr% oa'kjkt vkfn ds lkFk mudk eqLrjdk dCtk ugha gks ldrkA txjukFk vkfn izfroknh ds f[kykQ jsltqfMdsVk dk fl)kar vfjt gSA**

5. Per contra, Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that submission of the petitioners before the Authorities was that their names were entered in revenue records, however, they have not referred any document to dispute that respondents were co-sharers and there are concurrent findings of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Revisional Authority in this regard, therefore, this Court may not interfere and since there was no perversity or order being passed beyond jurisdiction, therefore, interference under writ jurisdiction is not warrant.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that case of petitioners and Banshraj was same and was arrayed as respondent, therefore, it was a case of co-tenancy, therefore, they are estoppel to raise any contrary submissions.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Udai (dead) Ram Lakhan (dead) Karedin and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 1990 RD Page 9 and a judgment of Supreme Court in D.S. Lakshmaiah and another v. L. Balasubramanyam and another , (2003) 10 SCC 310 that -:

"18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so assertin