JUDGMENT: SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. This case is arising out of objections filed u/s 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The objections filed by contesting respondents were allowed by an order dated 01.05.2010 passed by Consolidation Officer to the extent that name of predecessors of present petitioners were expunged despite being having long standing revenue entries on a ground that entries were made without any factual or legal basis. 2. A challenge on behalf of predecessors of petitioners to above referred order dated 01.05.2010 passed by Consolidation Officer, Pindara, Varanasi before Settlement Officer of Consolidation (SOC) Varanasi was remained unsuccessful as well as subsequent challenge before Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) also remained unsuccessful. The appeal was rejected vide an order dated 23.04.2016 and revision was dismissed vide an order dated 18.07.2025/27.08.2025. 3. Aforesaid orders dated 01.05.2010, 23.04.2016 and 18.07.2025/27.08.2025 are challenged in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for rival parties are in agreement that present writ petition can be decided without exchange of pleadings as all relevant documents are on record of present writ petition as well as legal issues are involved. 5. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Y.V. Bajpai, learned counsel for petitioners has referred averments made in this writ petition specifically that Ganga s/o Shiv Dayal was recorded as sole tenure holder in 1291-F relating to Mahal Jwala Prasad (plot nos. 252, 485, 495, 498) and Mahal Jasoda Bibi (plot nos. 236, 238, 242, 477). Ganga continued to be recorded on referred plots as sole tenure holder till 1307-F Khatauni and thereafter in 1309-F Khatauni. Ganga was recorded on 210, 478, 235 whereas petitioners’ predecessor (Shiv Baran) was recorded as 236/2, 247, 250, 471/1 while Sumer was recorded as 236/3, 242, 252, 492, 498/3. Subsequently, successors of Ganga, Shiv Baran and Sumer were recorded in 1334-F, 1356-F and 1378-F as well as basic year of Khatauni of 1388-F. Present petitioners represent the line of Shiv Baran. 6. Subsequently, successors of Ganga, Shiv Baran and Sumer were recorded in 1334-F, 1356-F and 1378-F as well as basic year of Khatauni of 1388-F. Present petitioners represent the line of Shiv Baran. 6. By referring above details, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that name of petitioners’ predecessors and their successors including petitioners were recorded at least from 1309-F to 1388-F i.e. for a very long period and admittedly, during said period, the respondents have never taken any step to get expunged the name of predecessors of petitioners, therefore, there would be a presumption that long revenue entries were genuine, however, without considering this aspect, all three Authorities under U.P.C.H. Act have passed orders against petitioners and allowed the objections filed by respondents’ predecessors. 7. Learned Senior Advocate has also submitted that Ganga was common ancestor of rival parties, however, Kursinama submitted by petitioners’ predecessors was wrongly rejected by the Consolidation Officer but substantially accepted by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. He also submitted that a finding that name of Sumer was for the first time recorded in 1334-F was contrary to record, since he was recorded for the first time in 1309-F and for that he referred khatauni of relevant fasli year. 8. Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for contesting respondents has submitted that only on a ground that objections were raised for the first time when consolidation proceedings were commenced would not make the entries in favour of predecessors of petitioners genuine, if there was no legal or factual basis for such entries as well as claim of common predecessors was also disputed. 9. Learned counsel also referred various part of all three impugned orders that since concurrent findings were based on material and after considering rival submissions, therefore, except being perverse in nature, writ court may not interfere it and that petitioners have not able to show any perversity. 10. 9. Learned counsel also referred various part of all three impugned orders that since concurrent findings were based on material and after considering rival submissions, therefore, except being perverse in nature, writ court may not interfere it and that petitioners have not able to show any perversity. 10. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Singh vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Camp Ballia and others , 1983 SCC Online All 643 ; Sri Ram and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad , 2011 0 Supreme (All) 709 as well as judgment of Supreme Court in Dharmraj and others vs. Chhitan and others , 2006 0 Supreme (SC) 1053 that the land in suit was settled by original zamindar and in order to prove co-tenancy, there must be some more substantive evidence, above than referred revenue entries of co-tenancy, however, predecessors of petitioners as well as petitioners remained failed to bring on record any such evidence or documents. 11. Heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the records. 12. Before adverting to rival submissions, it would be appropriate if relevant part of all three impugned orders be quoted below :- Order Date :- 01.05.2010 passed by Consolidation Officer 13. So far as law in regard to long standing revenue entries is concerned, Court takes note of a judgment of Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan , 1976 (3) SCC 642 which was followed by Supreme Court in Dharam Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others vs. Prem Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives, (2019) 3 SCC 530 and its relevant paragraph no. 24 is quoted below :- “ 24 The High Court has dealt with the above aspect of the matter and has held that continuation of entry after the order of deletion of the name of Amar Singh cannot confer any right. The judgment of this Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan [ Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan , (1976) 3 SCC 642 ] , has rightly been referred to and relied on by the High Court. This Court in para 14 of the judgment has laid down the following: (SCC p. 645) “14. The judgment of this Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan [ Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan , (1976) 3 SCC 642 ] , has rightly been referred to and relied on by the High Court. This Court in para 14 of the judgment has laid down the following: (SCC p. 645) “14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously . Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.”” 14. Above referred rival submissions and concurrent findings of three Authorities under U.P.C.H. Act has to be dealt with taking note of limited jurisdiction of writ to cause interference in concurrent findings of Authorities except being perverse. In this regard, Court takes note of a judgment pased by Supreme Court in Krishnanand (D) through LRs and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2015 (1) SCC 553 and for reference, its paragraph 12 is quoted below :- “12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for reappreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity.” 15. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity.” 15. Court takes note of above legal position that long revenue entries can be challenged if made surreptitiously though possibility of any fraud or forgery was neither pleaded nor mentioned in impugned orders. Reason for allowing objections filed by predecessors of respondents by all three Authorities that they failed to show any legal basis or order on which their names could be recorded suddenly after many years, though they claimed common ancestors as to respondents. 16. Court takes note that name of predecessors of petitioners were recorded including their successors for a very long period i.e. from 1309-F till objections were made as well as that name of Sumer was recorded for the first time in 1309-F not in 1334-F as observed in order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 17. The Kursinama filed by Ram Narayan was though accepted by all parties but it would not be sufficient to support entries since they have not based their case entirely on common ancestors as well as they are failed to explain why Ganga was recorded solely since 1291-F and after many years, name of predecessors of petitioners were recorded in 1307/1309-F without any subsequent event such as family partition if they are from common ancestors. 18. From Kursinama, it is evident that when name of only Ganga was recorded in 1291-F, there was no reference of Ram Dayal or Nanku or their successor allegedly brother of Ganga, therefore, without any basis name of Sumer was recorded in 1309-F as well as in 1334-F, name of Ramdev and Partap of petitioner’s side were recorded, however no reason was recorded for such entries i.e. were made without any basis, therefore, entries which were recorded suddenly and surreptitiously can not sustain and can be expunged. 19. In aforesaid circumstances, concurrent finding of three Authorities under U.P.C.H Act cannot be interfered being not shown as perverse. An argument of re-settlement being vague was also rightly rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 19. In aforesaid circumstances, concurrent finding of three Authorities under U.P.C.H Act cannot be interfered being not shown as perverse. An argument of re-settlement being vague was also rightly rejected by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and upheld by Deputy Director of Consolidation. The statement of Kishor was found unsufficient to prove the case of petitioners which was rejected after much deliberations by all three Authorities under U.P.C.H. Act. Nature of entries of petitioners in 1309-F was ‘sikmi cultivator’ for fixed period, therefore, they can not be considered as co-tenure holder. All above factor goes against the petitioners and were the basis of all three Authorities to expunge the entries. 20. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.