JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J.- Admittedly Hira and Dhola were too real brothers. Hira had two sons, Nathu and Reema whereas Dhola had Telu and Mangan. In basic year records Khata No. 263 was recorded in a name of Nathu and Phool Singh, Karan Singh and Rammi sons of Telu, Mangan filed objection u/s 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and claimed that he had share. How has he entitled to 1/4 appears o have been developed in evidence. If was claimed that land was ancestral, therefore, Hira and Dhola had one half and after death of Dhola his interest devolved on petitioner and Telu. In alternative acquisition by Nathu, Telu and Mangan was pleaded and entry of Telu's name was claimed to be in representative capacity. 2. Consolidation officer accepted petitioner's case that the land was acquired by Dhola and the opposite party failed to prove as to how the name of petitioner was omitted from revenue records. Possession of petitioner was found substantiated by irrigation slips, cane pass-book ; and revenue receipts. It was also held that there was no one as Rammi son of Telu, therefore, his name be expunged and petitioner, and opposite party nos. 4 and 5 may be recorded on l/4th each and Nathu may be recorded on one half. In appeal filed by opposite party nos. 4 and 5 expunction of Rammi's name was not disputed as it was admitted to all that Telu did not have a third son. But the finding that land was ancestral and was acquired in 1325 was set aside. It was found that identity was not established. But the appeal was dismissed as land was found to have been acquired by Nathu, Telu and Mangan that is opposite party no. 6, 4 and 5 petitioner respectively. For this reliance was placed mainly on oral evidence and that also of Poona, one of the sons of Reema and Nathu. It was found supported by irrigation slips of 1372 F and 1374 F and payments of receipts of irrigation dues. The Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the finding of appellate authority that land was not ancestral. But the finding of acquisition by petitioner along with Nathu and Telu or recording of Telu's name in representative capacity was set aside. It was found supported by irrigation slips of 1372 F and 1374 F and payments of receipts of irrigation dues. The Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed the finding of appellate authority that land was not ancestral. But the finding of acquisition by petitioner along with Nathu and Telu or recording of Telu's name in representative capacity was set aside. It was held that neither Zamindar nor his agent was examined in support of the case of settlement nor any receipt of payment of rent to Zamindar prior to Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed. In respect of pass-book of Co-operative case Development Union in name of petitioner the Deputy Director observed that it did establish that petitioner had sown suger-cane but it did not establish the village. Irrigation receipts for plot nos. 1415, 1417 and 1475 were found in name of petitioner but it was noticed that year on it was torn. For receipt of 137 F it was observed that one of the plots were not in dispute. After examining all this the Deputy Director found that although petitioner did irrigate some of plots but that alone was not sufficient for claiming co-tenancy rights. According to him the necessary ingredients which could establish co-tenancy were missing in this case. 3. To say the least the Deputy Director Consolidation completely misdirected himself in recording these findings. As the payment of irrigation dues and receipts was fully established he could not find better reasons to undermine their effect than that year was torn or one of the plots was not in dispute. Ignoring of pass-book of case Development Union is quite amazing. The finding that it did not mention village was irrelevant when it was admitted to opposite parties 4 and 5 that petitioner had no other Land. But the most vital evidence in this case was Nathu. That has been ignored altogether probably on pretext that the Zamindar was not examined. It was material, its non consideration vitiates the finding. Further that ingredient of co-tenancy was not established by petitioner has not been made clear. The finding has been set aside more as a matter of law. If land was acquired by Nathu, Telu and Mangan then nothing more was required to be established. However, the learned counsel for opposite party is justified in arguing that utmost the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed to decide the revision afresh. 4. The finding has been set aside more as a matter of law. If land was acquired by Nathu, Telu and Mangan then nothing more was required to be established. However, the learned counsel for opposite party is justified in arguing that utmost the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed to decide the revision afresh. 4. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision afresh. There shall be no order a to costs.