ORDER Lakshmi Prasad, J. - All these petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution can be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment, since identical questions arise in all the three cases. 2. Salig Ram and Radha Krishna are the Petitioners in all the three cases. Kanthu is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 668, Dalla is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 669 and Mitan is opposite party No. 5 in writ petition No. 670 of 1966. 3. Opposite party No. 5 in each of the three cases preferred an objection u/s 9 praying for the recording of his name over the disputed land after expunging the names of the Petitioners on the allegation that he was in fact the sirdar of the same. In each case the Petitioners contested the objection preferred by opposite party No. 5 and also filed an objection u/s 9, since in the course of field to field partal the possession of opposite party No. 5 was found. These objections came to be decided against the Petitioners by the Consolidation Officer. The Petitioners preferred an appeal in each case but the same was dismissed. The Petitioners thin went in revision. The Dy. Director while disposing of the revisions held that he had no jurisdiction to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and accordingly, he dismissed the revisions. It is in these circumstances that these petitions are filed with a prayer that the order passed in revision be quashed. 4. The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 5 in each case. It is admitted on all hands that the provisions of the amended Act applied. Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5 has frankly conceded that the order passed in revision cannot be supported having regard to the scope of S 48 of the amended Act. He, however, contends that since the provisional consolidation scheme has already been confirmed and delivery of chaks has been effected these petitions have become infructuous. For the contention he places reliance on Section 23(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. I do not agree with the contention that the petitions have become infructuous. Whether or not because of the confirmation u/s 23, the revision u/s 48 of the Act becomes infructuous is a question which can be raised before the Dy. For the contention he places reliance on Section 23(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. I do not agree with the contention that the petitions have become infructuous. Whether or not because of the confirmation u/s 23, the revision u/s 48 of the Act becomes infructuous is a question which can be raised before the Dy. Director himself and can be decided there. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that there is a decision by a Division Bench of this Court to the effect that a revision u/s 48 does not become infructuous because of confirmation u/s 23 of the Act. I need not express any opinion on the point. If that is so, the learned Counsel can very well raise it before the Dy. Director when the matter goes again before him in order to defeat the contention sought to be raised on behalf of opposite party No. 5. In the circumstances, the petitions must be allowed. 5. In the end, all the three petitions are allowed and the order passed in revision in each of the three caves is quashed with the direction that the revision shall be decided afresh having regard to the provisions of Section 48 of the amended Act, which give full power to the revising authority to revise questions of fact as well. In the circumstances of the case I direct parties to bear their costs.