JUDGMENT L. Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the death of Smt. Shivraja, widow of Parsu, the petitioner applied for mutation on the allegation that he, being the own brother of Parsu, was entitled to succeed to the tenancy left by Smt. Shivraja. On the other hand an application for mutation was moved by opposite party No. 5 alleging that he along with his brother, being daughter's sons of Parsu, were entitled to succeed. When the matter went before the Consolidation Officer the stand taken by opposite party No. 5 was that he, having been adopted by Parsu as his son, was entitled to succeed. The Consolidation Officer held that adoption was not proved and accordingly he allowed the application of the petitioner and dismissed that of opposite party No. 5. Opposite party No. 5 then went in appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that opposite party No. 5 was proved to be the adopted son of Parsu and accordingly he allowed the appeal. The petitioner went in revision which came to be dismissed by an order dated August 9, 1966 passed by a Deputy Director, a certified copy of which is annexure 3. The point urged before the Deputy Director was that adoption according to law was not proved in so far as there was no evidence to prove the physical act of giving and taking which is one of the essential ingredients of a valid adoption. The Deputy Director repelled that contention by making the following observations :- "Going through the statement of Daulat (i.e. opposite party No. 5) I find that it has been clearly stated that an adoption ceremony was held in which the physical act of giving and taking had taken place. Also there was held ceremony of Datta Hawan. The other witnesses namely Bajrang Bali, Bhabuti and Paltu have also testified to the fact of Daulat having been given in adoption by his natural father and having been taken in adoption by his adoptive father. This being the position of facts, it is clearly established that Daulat was validly adopted as son by Parsu." 2. The other witnesses namely Bajrang Bali, Bhabuti and Paltu have also testified to the fact of Daulat having been given in adoption by his natural father and having been taken in adoption by his adoptive father. This being the position of facts, it is clearly established that Daulat was validly adopted as son by Parsu." 2. The allegation in the Petition is that the statement of fact made in the above quoted passage from the impugned order is incorrect in so far as none of the three witnesses named in it ever stated a word about Daulat having been given in adoption by his natural father to his adoptive father. Certified copies of the statements of Bajrang Bali, Bhabuti and Paltu have been filed in support of the above mentioned allegation in the petition. These are annexures 4 to 6 to the petition. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order, annexure 3, which proceeds on a misreading of the evidence be quashed. 3. None appears to oppose the petition. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition stand un-controverted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has taken me through the statements of the three witnesses which are annexures 4 to 6. There does not appear anything in these statements to support the observation of the Deputy Director that they state about the physical act of giving and taking. The contention that the finding of the Deputy Director on which hinges his decision proceeds on a misreading of evidence, appears to be justified. In that view of the matter the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the end the petition is allowed and the impugned order, annexure 3, is quashed with the direction that the revision shall be disposed of afresh by reading the evidence correctly with a view to find out if or not any of the witness examined on the side of opposite party No. 5 has stated about the physical act of giving and taking. I make no order as to costs since no body appeared to oppose the petition.