ORDER

K.P. Singh, J. - Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner claimed the disputed property as adopted son of Baldeo whereas the contesting opposite party Ram Briksha claimed the disputed property as the nephew of Baldeo and asserted that Ram Chandra was not adopted son of Baldeo. The following pedigree is necessary for appreciation of the claims of the parties.

2. The consolidation officer through his judgment D/- 25-5-1976 accepted the claim of the petitioner (See Annexure II).

3. The appellate authority and the revisional court have given judgments against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. At the time of admission the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the consolidation authorities had acted illegally in deciding the claim of the parties when the same question between the parties was pending in a civil litigation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the consolidation authorities should have stayed the hearing of the proceedings till the decision of the question by the civil court. I had not agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the