JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-10-1974. 2. The proceedings giving rise to the present writ petition were started on the application of the petitioners for recording the correct area of their plot no. 736. There is no dispute between the parties that plot no. 736 belongs to the petitioners and plot no. 737 belongs to the contesting respondents. The petitioners have no concern with plot no. 737 and likewise contesting respondents have also no concern over plot no. 736. According to the contesting respondents area of this plot no. 737 is 12 biswas. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that the petitioners have got no concern or any claim in respect of an area of 12 biswas of plot no. 737. They have only concern with the correct area of plot no. 736. At one stage when the matter came up before the Deputy Director of Consolidation it was considered by him that a report of the Rectangulation Officer after measurement of the plots is necessary. In pursuance of that order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation the Rectangulation Officer after necessary measurements gave a report on 23-6-1973. According to the report the area of plot no. 736 was found to be 2 Bighas & 19 biswas. When the matter again came up before the Deputy Director of Consolidation he totally overlooked the report of the Rectangulation Officer which was earlier called for by him. It is not understandable that when at one stage the Deputy Director of Consolidation considered that the report of the Rectangulation Officer with necessary measurements was necessary for the decision of this case, then how the case disposed of by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in complete ignorance of that report. If was very much necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine that report and in case it was correct it should have been accepted and if it was not to his satisfaction the same could have been rejected after giving reasons for that or fresh report ought to have been called for. 4. If was very much necessary for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine that report and in case it was correct it should have been accepted and if it was not to his satisfaction the same could have been rejected after giving reasons for that or fresh report ought to have been called for. 4. In view of the fact that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the material fact while disposing of the revision, he has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-10-1974 cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed. 5. In the result, the petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17-10-1974 is hereby quashed and he is directed to decide the case afresh according to law and in the light of the observations made above. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.