Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.7.2005 passed in revision No. 1337, by which he has dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the land of khata No. 434 measuring 40 bigha, 1 biswa, 14 biswansi situated at village Sujawalpur, petitioner was claiming half share. In the consolidation proceeding, petitioner filed objection on 24.1.1987 under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, who vide order dated 18.2.1987 allotted one third share each to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Petitioner challenged the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer before Settlement Officer Consolidation, who vide order dated 29.9.1988 set aside the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer and remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter on merit. Before the Consolidation Officer respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed written statement alleging that the land in dispute was self acquired property of their father, namely, Shri Ram Gulam and not the ancestral property. The claim of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was not the self acquired property of Ram Gulam and was ancestral property of both brothers, namely, Ram Gulam and Ram Sewak who were having half share each and they were in possession of their shares and after the death of Ram Sewak, the petitioner is entitled for half share. In support of the rival claim both the parties have adduced the evidence and produced several persons as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, Bindki passed the ex-parte order dated 20.3.1999 allowed the objection filed by the petitioner and directed to enter the name of the petitioner as co-bhumidhars having half share. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed appeal No. 3837/142/423 under Section 11(1) of the Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal vide order dated 9.10.2003 and set aside the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.10.2003 petitioner filed revision No. 1337 of 2003, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Revisional authority held that in khata No. 434 the name of Satish Chand and Sharad Chand, both sons of Ram Gulam were recorded as bhumidhars. From the evidence, it is clear that the respondents have got the right as legal heirs from his father, Ram Gulam. It is clear from P.K.-11 khatauni 1377 to 1380 fasli that this land is entered in the name of individual name of Ram Gulam. The name of Ram Gulam is also entered in 1366-1368 fasli in Aakar Patra 23 and 45 in first round of consolidation proceeding. On the basis of the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 30.9.1961 and order of the Consolidation Officer the names of Ram Gulam, Laxmi Kant are directed to be entered. It has been further observed that against the order none of the party filed any objection, appeal or revision and, therefore, the order after the first round of consolidation proceeding had become final. Petitioner’s father has also not filed any objection, appeal or revision against the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is barred under Section 49 of the Act. It has been held that all the disputes relating to co-ownership had been settled in the first round of the consolidation proceedings and, their shares have also been determined. Therefore, raising the issues relating to the share by the petitioner is barred under Section 11 of the C.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence adduced before the authorities below clearly show that the property in dispute was ancestral. He submitted that appellate authority as well as revisional authority have not considere