JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This Court would have appreciated if the orders of the Consolidation authorities were clear. I am not able to properly understand the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). But the Consolidation Officer had proceeded with the assumption that all the land belonging to coparcener's of the joint Hindu family can be regarded as a property belonging to all. It was not realised that coparcener's can possess separate property also. In the same meant agricultural land can be acquired by some of the coparcener's. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed the appeal but from his order it appears that all the land was acquired at about the same time. In such a case, unless suitably explained, land obtained in the name of some, even though other land was obtained in the name of all shall be treated as the land of the recorded persons. 2. When the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) proceeded on wrong assumptions, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could have exercised the revisional jurisdiction. I must, however add that even the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation lacks certain details. For example, he referred to khata Nos. 336 Ka to include plots nos. 843 and 841/15 15/2, but it was not indicated what the entry pertaining to these plots was in the Settlement of 1289F. The Deputy Director simply observed at the end of the judgment, that these plots constitute Khata no. 336 Ka and were not ancestral. In the absence of comments, this finding shall deserve to be quashed so that the matter may be decided properly on the basis of the evidence on record. 3. The writ petition is hereby allowed in the sense that the impugned order dated 20-9-1963 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The revision shall now be heard and decided afresh. After admitting additional evidence it is necessary. What is necessary is that these should be, material on record to prove the origin of the land. Costs easy.