JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The disputed land stood recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite party No. 4 in the basic year. An objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was preferred by opposite party No. 3 claiming that it be entered in his name as he had perfected his title to it by adverse possession. His objection was allowed on September 28, 1965. The petitioners went in appeal which was allowed on January 3, 1966. Opposite party No. 3 then preferred a revision which was allowed on August 3, 1966. The petitioners challenge the validity of the order passed in revision on two grounds : Firstly, they maintain that in view of the confirmation made under Section 23 of the Act on October 30, 1965 the revision should have been dismissed as infructuous. Secondly, it is urged that the finding of fact arrived at in the impugned order proceeds on incorrect statement of facts and as such deserves to be quashed. Accordingly it is prayed that the impugned order dated August 3, 1966, passed in revision, a certified copy of which is Annexure 4 to the petition, be quashed. 2. The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 3. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged the two grounds stated above. I see no substance in the first ground. As already indicated confirmation was made on September 30, 1965 whereas the order of the Consolidation Officer upholding the objection of opposite party No. 3 was passed on September 28, 1965. In view of the order of the September 28, 1965, confirmation had to conform to it. In other words, it should have been in the name of opposite party No. 3 and not in the name of the petitioners. If the confirmation was wrongly made in the name of the petitioners then certainly it could be rectified and on that score the revision preferred by opposite party No. 3 and disposed of by the impugned order could not be held to have become infructuous. 4. In support of the other ground the learned counsel has taken me through the judgment passed in revision. 4. In support of the other ground the learned counsel has taken me through the judgment passed in revision. It is observed in the judgment that it is admitted that Buddhu and Maiku have one-half and one-fourth share respectively in the land in dispute. Then it is said that Buddhu has admitted the claim of the revisionist (i.e. opposite party No. 3 and Maiku has not contested the claim. The stand of the petitioners is that both these statements of fact are incorrect in so far as Buddhu had only one-fourth and not one-half share in the disputed land and Maiku did contest the claim of opposite party No. 3 though, of course, pairwi on his behalf was also done by his brother Pareedin who is petitioner No. 1. Later on it is observed in the judgment :- "Unfortunately it has altogether omitted to consider that Buddhu and Maiku have supported the claim of the revisionist, the former by admitting it and the latter by not contesting it. In these circumstances it can safely be presumed that non-showing of the possession of the revisionist during 1362, 1366 and 1367 is only an omission in our records. It has also not been the case of the opposite party that the revisionist has been entering and abandoning and then re-entering through force or otherwise. In these circumstances the possession of the revisionist is presumed to be continuous." 5. The learned counsel contends that the finding of continuous possession thus arrived at stands vitiated because it proceeds on presumption which in its turn proceeds on incorrect statement of facts. It is strongly urged that the statement that Maiku supported the claim by not contesting it is factually incorrect and this mistaken belief misled the Deputy Director to make the presumption he did. 6. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 that the appellate judgment which is Annexture 2 to the petition itself indicates that the proceedings before the opposite party No. 3 proceeded ex-parte against Maiku. The fact that Buddhu admitted the claim is admitted in the petition itself. It may be that the Deputy Director incorrectly stated that the share of Buddhu was half but that fact by itself has no effect whatsoever on the reasoning he has adopted to conclude that the possession of opposite party No. 3 was proved to be continuous. The fact that Buddhu admitted the claim is admitted in the petition itself. It may be that the Deputy Director incorrectly stated that the share of Buddhu was half but that fact by itself has no effect whatsoever on the reasoning he has adopted to conclude that the possession of opposite party No. 3 was proved to be continuous. The petitioners have nowhere squarely stated in their affidavit that the statement in the appellate judgment Annexure 2 that the objection of opposite party No. 3 proceeded ex parte against Maiku is factually incorrect. Thus the fact remains that Maiku did not contest the objection of opposite party No. 3 in the sense that he did not file any written contest as was done by his brother Parideen. The reasoning of the Deputy Director to the effect that Maiku supported the claim of opposite party No. 3 by not contesting it may be open to objection but that fact by itself cannot be a basis for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Deputy Director was competent to record a finding of fact and unless it is shown to proceed on evidence inadmissible or by excluding evidence admissible or that there is no evidence to support it, it is not possible to quash the order under Article 226 of the Constitution based on a finding of fact which does not suffer from any of the infirmities indicated above. I am, therefore, unable to give effect to the contention of the learned counsel. 7. In the end the petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.