JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of the consolidation of holdings proceedings. 2. The relationship of the parties will be clear from the following pedigree : - 3. In this case the question of shares between the parties is involved. The names of both the parties are recorded in the basic year khatauni as tenure-holders Khata No. 196 (area 86 acre) was obtained through a sale-deed in favour of the parties. Therefore, there is no dispute that both the parties are tenure-holders of the land in dispute. According to the case of respondent No. 2 half of the consideration was paid on his behalf and the remaining half was paid by the petitioners and the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are in possession over their half shares. According to the case of the petitioners only one fourth of the consideration was paid by respondent No. 2 and the remaining three fourth of the consideration was paid by the petitioners. Therefore, the share of the petitioners in the holding in dispute is three fourth and the share of respondent No. 2 is one fourth. 4. The Consolidation Officer accepted the case set up by the petitioners. The order of the Consolidation Officer was affirmed in appeal by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Respondent No. 2 filed a revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and he was declared to have half share in the holding in dispute. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation before this Court in this writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally accepted the statements of the witnesses who were discarded by the subordinate consolidation authorities. It was also contended that in the absence of the conclusive evidence that half of the consideration was paid by the Respondent No. 2 all the parts are entitled to equal shares on the basis of the sale-deed in view of Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act where there is specification of the shares in the sale-deed itself. 5. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 contended, in reply, that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has given good reasons for accepting the evidence of Respondent No. 2 and, that there is specific evidence on record of the case that half of the consideration was paid by Respondent No. 2, Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted. 6. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that he has accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and has given good reasons for accepting the same. According to the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation half of the consideration of the sale-deed in question was paid by Respondent No. 2. Therefore, respondent No. 2 is entitled to have half share in the holdings in dispute. Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable only in a case where there is no specific evidence about the payment of specific share of the sale consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to assail the findings of fact recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.