D. N. JHA, J. Nishan has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated November 21, 1969 contained in An nexure 3. The case set out in the petition is that one Chaudhi was the tenure-holder of plot No. 215 in the First Settlement, 291 in the Se cond Settlement and thereafter plot No. 1281 situate in village Durga-gan, Pargana and Tahsil Bilgram, District Hardoi. He was recorded as such in 1308 Fasli. His son Saktey died during the life time of Chaudhi and when Chaudhi died, the petitioner was minor. The mother of the petitioner, having nobody to support, remarried one Mulla and started living with him. The petitioner also resided with his mother. The petitioner was minor and as such Mulla was looking after the cultivation and his name was entered in revenue papers first along with the minor and thereafter along with one Sobaran. It is. stated that this entry in his name and that of Sobaran was entered as chief tenants by the collusion of the village Lekhpal. The petitioner in the year 1942 joined Defence Services and thereafter he was discharged in the year 1947 and he settled down in his village and started looking after his cultivation. The petitioner discovered that incorrect entries existed in the revenue recqrds in favour of Mulia and Sobaran and hence he applied for correction of papers. Mulla and Sobaran in those proceedings made statements in favour of the petitioner and the learn ed Tehsildar ordered that the name of the petitioner be recorded as Sir dar of the land in dispute. The entries were not corrected and hence the petitioner filed a Regular Suit for declaration. The suit was dismissed whereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner vide order dated August 26, 1964. The Second Appeal against this order was filed but on account of the consolidation opera tions the Board of Revenue could not decide and the appeal stood abated. The plot No. 1261 measuring 3 Bighaas 10 Biswas of Khata No. 219 in the basic year was recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite parties Puttai, Jharman Lal and Ram Dayal. The petitioner preferred an objection claiming exclusive Sirdari rights over the plot. The plot No. 1261 measuring 3 Bighaas 10 Biswas of Khata No. 219 in the basic year was recorded in the names of the petitioner and opposite parties Puttai, Jharman Lal and Ram Dayal. The petitioner preferred an objection claiming exclusive Sirdari rights over the plot. This claim was disputed by the opposite parties and as such the dispute came up before the Consolidation Officer. The Consoli dation Officer vide his order dated June 7, 1967 allowed the objection and ordered that the names of Puttai, Jharman Lal and Ram Dayal sons of Maiku be expunged. Certified copy, of this order is Annexure 1. The opposite parties filed an appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated Novem ber 4, 1967 by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). There after, the opposite parties filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated November 21, 1967 allowed the revision and directed the opposite parties to be recorded as co-tenants in the land in dispute. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come up before this court challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation. The petition is_ resisted on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is admitted that the suit for declaration was filed and the Second Appeal pending be fore the Board of Revenue stood abated and it is asserted that after the death of Chaudhi the tenancy was re- settled in the name of Mulla, the relation of the parties. It is denied that Mulla and Sobaran had made any statement admitting the exclusive title of the petitioner over the disputed land. They have relied on the statement made by the petitioner, copy of which has been filed as Annexure C-l and they have asserted that the claims of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 were almost admitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to apply his mind to the facts in issue and erro neously rejected the claims of the petitioner for exclusive Sir1-dari rights over the plots in dispute. 3 to 5 were almost admitted. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to apply his mind to the facts in issue and erro neously rejected the claims of the petitioner for exclusive Sir1-dari rights over the plots in dispute. He further asserted that Mulla, as a matter of fact, had no claim to the disputed land and the opposite parties who were claiming through Mulla could not claim better right than what Mulla possessed over the disputed land. He maintained that no co-tenancy rights could be conferred on oppo site parties in this view of the matter. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. The learned De puty Director of Consolidation, it appears, was impressed by the fact that the petitioner had stated that he did not pay any rent himself and that it might have been paid by Puttai, opposite party No. 3. He further, in his judgment, has mentioned that the identity of the hold ing recorded in 1308 Fasli did not appear to be the same as that of the present basic year holding and thus he was of the opinion that the tenancy in Oudh was not heritable at the said time and hence no ten ancy. right being heritable under the Oudh Rent Act, Nishan could not claim any exclusive rights over the property. He further recorded a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove the pedigree and so it could not be said that he alone was the heir of Mulla. This finding obviously is not only incorrect but perverse. It is admitted by the opposite parties that Nishan was the grandson of Chaudhi and it is also not disputed that his mother who had become widow after the death of Chaudhi married Mulla. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely lost sight of this fact. He has proceeded on wrong assumption that the identity of holding since did not tally the petitioner had no exclusive right in the property in dispute. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into account the entries of 1363 Fasli to 1365 Fasli wherein Sobaran and Mulla were entered as the tenants-in-chief and Nishan as Qabiz. He has proceeded on wrong assumption that the identity of holding since did not tally the petitioner had no exclusive right in the property in dispute. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into account the entries of 1363 Fasli to 1365 Fasli wherein Sobaran and Mulla were entered as the tenants-in-chief and Nishan as Qabiz. He has also not considered the impact of the statements made by Sobaian and Mulla in the correction of record case relinquishing their interest and title in the property in favour of the petitioner. If it is assumed that the identity of the land held by Chaudhi was not identical to the one re corded in the basic year, then obviously there was some additional piece of land added to the old land and their right in that property vested in Sobaran and Mulla. It is to be seen if Sobaran and Mulla had made statements in writing before a competent authority admit ting the claims of the petitioner the question arises as to what right still subsisted in Mulla after this statement. If Mulla had not per fected any right in the property or had no legall right in the property then the opposite parties who were claiming through Mulla could not assert for any better substantive ;right in the property by way of co tenancy. I am, however, refraining from expressing myself on the various aspects and facts of the case which have been canvassed be fore me by both the parties as I am inclined to remand the case for due consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has, in my opinion proceeded to dispose of the matter contrary to the evi dence on record and as such there is manifest error in his judgment and it cannot be maintained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. The case is remand ed to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall restore the re vision of the opposite parties to its original number and proceed to dispose it of in the light of the observations made above and in ac cordance with law. I, however, make no order as to costs. .