JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J.- In objection filed under Section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act opposite party no. 4 claimed to have acquired sirdari right on basis of possession over plot no. 231, 233, 234 and 237 of khata no. 76. His claim was accepted by Consolidation Officer but in appeal it was held that petitioners contained to be tenure-holders of plot no. 233. In respect of the remaining plots the order of Consolidation Officer was upheld both by appellate and revising authority. 2. The Consolidation Officer found that the petitioners name was entered in revenue records from 1364 fasli to 1375 and 1377 fasli. From 1378 fasli the name of opposite party was entered in class 9. The Consolidation Officer further found that although the name of opposite party was entered from 1364 fasli to 1367 fasli but no. P.A. 10 was issued nor diary number was noted. He however allowed the objection and held that opposite party was in possession since 1959 because the petitioner had himself admitted his possession since that date. This finding was upheld by Settlement Officer Consolidation. The basis for this finding was an order passed by Sub-divisional Officer on 15th July 1959. The opposite party filed an application before Tahsildar for recording his name over these four plots as he was in possession. On this application notices were issued to petitioner no. 1 and Chairman Land Management Committee. The Land Management Committee did not put in appearance but the petitioner was stated to have appeared and admitted the possession of opposite party. This report was submitted by Tahsildar. The Sub-divisional Officer accepted this report and allowed objection and the name of opposite party was entered in revenue records. Before consolidation authorities a dispute arose whether the so called admission of petitioner no. 1 was signed by him or not. Experts were examined of both sides and the Deputy Director Consolidation after scrutinising their evidence found it as fact that the signature of petitioner no. 1 on the so called admission before the Tahsildar in correction proceedings initiated by opposite party were not genuine. Once this finding was recorded the entire report of the Tahsildar and the order passed by Sub-divisional Officer on it became irrelevant and could not in any manner be utilised for deciding whether, opposite party was in possession or not. 1 on the so called admission before the Tahsildar in correction proceedings initiated by opposite party were not genuine. Once this finding was recorded the entire report of the Tahsildar and the order passed by Sub-divisional Officer on it became irrelevant and could not in any manner be utilised for deciding whether, opposite party was in possession or not. The Deputy Director Consolidation however after recording this finding committed an error in accepting the claim of opposite party on the entry in revenue record from 1366 fasli. This entry obviously was made because of the order passed by Sub-divisional Officer. If the order itself cannot stand in law then entry on this basis could not be considered as relevant evidence for deciding whether opposite party was in possession in 1366 fasli. 3. The learned counsel for opposite party argued that as the order of Deputy Director Consolidation was an order of affirmence he could rely on the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation in support of the finding that opposite party was in possession since 1366 fasli. The finding of the Consolidation Officer had already been noticed above. It is obvious that he did not place any reliance on the entry and accepted the case of opposite party from 1369 fasli only because of the order passed in correction case. The consolidation authorities therefore in fact decided the claim of opposite party only on this order and not on evidence on record. 4. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. He shall decide the revision afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that petitioners no. 2 and 3 who claimed to have acquired rights by possession over plot no. 233 and their claim was accepted by petitioner no. 1 shall also have right to appear and contest the claim of opposite party no. 4 in respect of this plot. Parties shall bear their own costs.