JUDGMENT : R.S. Singh, J. The writ petitions are directed against the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revisions filed by the Petitioners and allowing that of the contesting Respondents. The dispute between the parties was in respect of Khatas Nos. 8, 9, 11, 30, 31, 27, 28 and 50. The case set up by the Petitioners was that all these Khatas were ancestral properties of the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The Petitioners are co-tenure-holders in all these Khatas with Respondents Nos. t and 5. The case set up by the contesting Respondents was that they are exclusive tenure-holders of the land in dispute and the Petitioners have no concern with the same. One of the Respondents Sukh Nandan had also filed an objection claiming to be co-tenure-holder in Khata No. 30 only. 2. The Consolidation Officer held that the Petitioners are also co-tenure holders in plots Nos. 27, 50, 51, 170 and 171 of Khata No. 28 along with Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and in respect of the remaining holdings Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were declared to be the sole-tenure-holders. Appeals were filed by the Petitioners as well as the contesting Respondents against the order of the Consolidation Officer. All the appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Three revisions were filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), one by the Petitioners, the other by Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the third by Sukhnandan, Respondent No. 6. The revision filed by the Petitioners was dismissed whereas the other revisions were allowed. The Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation before this Court. 3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in the year 1939 there was an agreement between Mata Badal, Laxmi Narain as well as on behalf of Smt. Duja on one side and the ancestors of the Petitioners on the other side. In the agreement it was clearly admitted that the Petitioners were also owners of the land in dispute. According to the case of the Petitioners their ancestors, were sir and Khudkasht-holders along with the ancestors of Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 bat the name of ancestor of the contesting Respondents was recorded in the representative capacity. By this agreement their rights were recognised by the recorded sir and Khudkasht-holders. According to the case of the Petitioners their ancestors, were sir and Khudkasht-holders along with the ancestors of Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 bat the name of ancestor of the contesting Respondents was recorded in the representative capacity. By this agreement their rights were recognised by the recorded sir and Khudkasht-holders. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in law in rejecting the registered agreement and not placing any reliance on this agreement on superfluous grounds. In view of this agreement the claim of the Petitioners is proved and as no case has been setup on behalf of the contesting Respondents that the title of the Petitioners has extinguished on the basis of adverse possession, the Petitioners' title in the land in dispute is subsisting and, therefore they be declared as tenure-holders. In respect of Khata No. 30 it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Sukh Nandan is not from the branch of Bhola and, therefore, he has wrongly been held as co-tenure-holder by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 that the agreement dated 19-5-1939 was challenged by Smt. Duja and the case came up to this Court. The agreement was held not to be binding on Smt Duja and at the same time. It was also observed that the agreement has not been acted upon. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents no reliance can be placed on this agreement as it was not acted upon and also it has not been legally proved. 5. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 contended that Sukh Nandan also belongs to the same family. Therefore, he has been rightly declared as co-tenure-holder in Khata No. 30 as it is their ancestral holding. 6. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. As far as Khata No. 30 is concerned, the claim of Sukh Nandan was rejected by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but it was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the claim of Sukh Nandan presumably on the ground that he is also one of the members of the family to which the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the claim of Sukh Nandan presumably on the ground that he is also one of the members of the family to which the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 belong. But no specific finding has been given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to that effect. Therefore, in the absence of any clear finding that khata No. 30 belongs to the common ancestor and also the Respondent No. 6 is the descendant of the common ancestor, the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Respondent No. 6 is also the member of the family of the Petitioners and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 cannot be sustained in law. 7. As far as plots Nos. 27, 50, 51, 170 and 171 of khata No. 28 are concerned, it appears from the facts given in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer that the name of the ancestors of the Petitioners was recorded in 1319 Fasli, 1334 Fasli and 1359 Fasli. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration this evidence and rejected the claim of the Petitioners on the basic fact that these plots were mortgaged by the ancestors of Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and were redeemed by them. In the absence of any finding of adverse possession much less any case the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners in respect of these plots. 8. So far as the rest of the land in dispute is concerned, the case of the Petitioners was based on the registered agreement dated 19-5-1939. It has not been proved that from the agreement any inference is inferred in favour of the Petitioners, it relates to only pre-existing rights and not creating any new rights. Therefore, no question of this document being acted upon arises. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rejecting this document are unwarranted in law. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reasons for not placing reliance on this document, that “An admission to be binding has to be made in a suit or proceeding where a pertinent cause of action exists. This admission was not made in such circumstances. Further it was not acted upon at all.... The Deputy Director of Consolidation has given reasons for not placing reliance on this document, that “An admission to be binding has to be made in a suit or proceeding where a pertinent cause of action exists. This admission was not made in such circumstances. Further it was not acted upon at all.... “There is no such law that the admission is to be used against any person must be in some proceedings. The view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly erroneous in this respect also. Further in case when no right was created by any document, in that case there is no necessity of the document being acted upon. If it is only a document of pre-existing rights, it is not required to be acted upon. The parties have to prove their title and that can be only taken into consideration as an admission along with other evidence on the record. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners have produced oral documents but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the same. But there is no averment in the writ petition itself regarding the oral document not being considered. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given any other ground for discarding this document although the Consolidation Officer held that the document was not legally proved. But the judgments of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation show that the document was taken into consideration in respect of some of the khatas in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have considered the document in the light of the other evidence and the circumstances of the case and the ground for rejecting the documents is untenable. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in law and it deserves to be quashed. 19. In the result, I allow the petition, set aside the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in both the petitions and direct him to decide the cases afresh according to law and to the light of the observations made above.