RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.K. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the peti­tioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri R.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
(2.) THE pith and substance of the case is that the legality of a Will said to have been executed on 3.2.1981 by one Keedhi S/o Baur, R/o Gadchapa, Pargana Kodari South Tehsil Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur. The rival claimants have staked their claims on the land in dispute. The Tehsil-dar has rejected the submissions of the pe­titioner and passed a detailed order run­ning in five pages on 27.1.2005 holding that the Will said to be registered in favour of Mansha by Keedhi was not proved. It was not found to be a legal and valid Will. Moreover, the Tehsildar has fur­ther recorded the finding that the land in dispute i.e. plot No. 208 Rakba 1-11 acre is a category IV-A ceiling land. The pedigree was also admitted by the parties. It has re­jected the petitioner's claim on the ground that he had no real substantial connection with the land as a legal heir or as a person holding a legal and valid Will. The said findings were affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in the order dated 9.3.2010. The Additional Commissioner has powers un­der section 219 of Land Revenue Act to entertain such revisions. The revisional authority had also noted that the parties have already been given opportunity of hearing to put-forth their submissions. The Will itself could not be proved. There were contradictions in the statements of the wit­nesses. Even the relationship of Keedhi with Mansha was disputed whether Keedhi was petitioner's father-in-law or was uncle belonging to the same family. Since all the Courts have recorded concurrent findings of fact and there is nothing on record to persuade the Court that the findings are perverse or are based on no evidence or any other factor to entertain the writ peti­tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THIS Court cannot act as a super first Revenue Court or a Revisional Court to reassess or re-apprise the materials on record. Accordingly the writ petition is, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;