JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, M. - Petitioner Ram Lakhan has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the orders dated June 29, 1970 and December 3, 1970 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation contained in Annexures 6 and 8, respectively. 2. Briefly stating the facts are that the dispute in this case relates between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1 with respect to plots Nos. 43, 46 and 47 situate in village Tikaria, Pergana, Tahsil and District Gonda. In the basic year the disputed plots were recorded in the name of the petitioner. Opposite party No. 1 filed objections claiming rights by adverse possession by virtue of being in possession over the disputed plots. The dispute came up for consideration before the Consolidation Officer who by his order dated April 3, 1969 rejected the objection preferred by opposite party No. 1 who aggrieved by the order preferred an appeal and the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated June 29, 1970 allowed the appeal. This order is Annexure 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order went up in revision and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on December 3, 1970. This order is Annexure 8. This is how the matter has been brought before this court impugning the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The petition has been resisted on behalf of opposite party No. 1 Bharat and a counter-affidavit has also been filed in which it is reiterated that the orders impugned in the writ petition do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the Consolidation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the various material that has been brought on the record of this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the courts below erred in conferring rights and ordering Bharat to be recorded over the disputed plots. He pointed out that opposite party No. 1 was not recorded continuously for a period of six years and he also argued that Bharat himself did not come into the witness box to assert his claim. He pointed out that opposite party No. 1 was not recorded continuously for a period of six years and he also argued that Bharat himself did not come into the witness box to assert his claim. I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Assistant Settlement Officer(Consolidation) and I have no hesitation in observing that they have not carefully examined the various entries of which copies were filed by the respective contesting parties. The plots in dispute had been purchased by the petitioner from one Hazari Lal who was admittedly Bhumidhar of the plots vide the sale deed executed on October 16, 1966 in favour of the petitioner. His name was mutated on July 4, 1967, vide Annexure 1. It transpires from the order of mutation that at the relevant time Bharat was in possession over the disputed plots but on account of recital in the dale deed possession was accepted and the name of Ram Lakhan was mutated. However, it appears that the petitioner could not secure the disputed plots hence a suit had been filed under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Bharat. This suit abated on account of village having come under consolidation operations. The authorities, therefore had to examine whether Bharat had perfected his right by adverse possession. The entries on record are from 1364 Fasli till 1374 Fasli and I find that the name of Bharat does not find place over plot No. 43 in 1364 Fasli. In 1368 and 1369 Faslis there is omission of the name of opposite party No. 1 and then again there is omission in 1373 Fasli. It clearly indicates that continuously opposite party No. 1 has not been shown to be in continuous possession over the plots in dispute. The oral evidence has not been considered by any of the courts although in may opinion it should have been considered and analytical assessment should have been arrived at by the subordinate consolidation courts to find out whether Bharat was in physical and continuous possession over the disputed plots for six years excluding the period of litigation entered into between the petitioner and Bharat. The approach has not been correctly made and hence the order is contrary to the evidence on record and cannot be sustained in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. I would, however, like to observe that the possession of the person will not be distributed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation will dispose of the Matter on the basis of oral and documentary evidence already existing on record without providing any opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. 4. In the light of observations made above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated December 3, 1970 passed by Sri Kanhaiya Lal. Deputy Director of Consolidation, is quashed. Let certiorari issue accordingly. I further direct that the revision preferred by the petitioner will be restored to its original number and will be disposed of expeditiously by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering oral and documentary evidence already on record. I, however, make no order as to costs.