Judgment S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of the proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. There are 12 khatas in dispute- khata Nos. 3, 8, 34, 39, 50, 93, 102, 104, 129, 156, 157 and 242 situate in village Bavai, Taluka Mondh, Pergana Bhadohi, district Varanasi. In the basic year the names of Radhey Shyam, Raj Narain and Rajdeo, sons of Ram Dular were recorded as sirdars. Mst. Indrani, widow of Ram Kishore filed an objection under section 9-A 2) of the Act claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share in the land in dispute on the ground that she was the legally wedded wife of Ram Kishore who was the son of Bachcha. Radhey Shyam, Raj Narain and Rajdeo contested the claim of Smt. Indrani mainly on the ground that Ram Kishore died in 1936 without leaving behind him any heir or legal representative. In effect it was denied that Smt. Indrani was the widow of Ram Kishore. 2. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Mst. Indrani in the first innings. Against that order an appeal was filed on behalf of Radhey Shyam, Rajnarain and Rajdeo. This appeal was allowed. Thereafter Smt. Indrani filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. On 20th October, 1970 the revision was allowed and the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the objections afresh, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard. After remand the Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Smt. Indrani in respect of khata Nos. 3, 8, 34, 39, 50, 93, 102 and 104 and held that Smt. Indrani was a co-tenant in respect of the half share in the said khata. THE objections were rejected in respect of khata Nos. 157, 242, 156 and 129. Ultimately after remand two issues were framed by the Consolidation Officer, whether Ram Kishore died as a member of the joint Hindu family and the second question was as to when Ram Kishore died. In respect of the date of death, the question to be decided was as to whether Ram Kishore died in 1936 or in 1956 as alleged by Smt. Indrani. It was held by the Consolidation Officer that Ram Kishore died as a member of the joint Hindu family. In respect of the date of death, the question to be decided was as to whether Ram Kishore died in 1936 or in 1956 as alleged by Smt. Indrani. It was held by the Consolidation Officer that Ram Kishore died as a member of the joint Hindu family. Mst. Indrani was the widow of Ram Kishore and that the death of Ram Kishore took place in 1956. In effect accepted the case of Mst. Indrani. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed, one by Smt. Indrani in respect of four khatas and the other by Raj Narain and Rajdeo in respect of other eight khatas. It may be stated here that Radhey Shyam was also made a party as a respondent in the appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 17th April, 1972. The appeal of Smt. Indrani was dismissed, while the appeal of Raj Narain and Raj Deo was allowed. Radhey Shyam also consequently got the benefit of decision of the appeal passed in favour of Raj Narain and Rajdeo. The order of the appellate court dated 17th April, 1972 was challenged by Smt. Indrani before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. The revision was allowed on 5-4-1973. The case of Smt. Indrani was accepted in regard to eight khatas, as found by the Consolidation Officer and in respect of four khatas in which her claim was dismissed, the said case was remanded. It is against the decision dated 5th April, 1973 that the present petition has been filed by Radhey Shyam in this court on 17th October, 1974 almost after a period of one and a half years from the date of the decision of the revision on 5th April, 1973. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated in law inasmuch as he has not set aside the reasonings given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has consequently acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exerise of his jurisdiction in setting aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by which he had believed the death "register filed by the petitioner to show that Ram Kishore had died in the year 1936. It has been further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has' not given any reason why he has believed the entry made at Manikarnika Ghat which entry was relied upon by Smt. Indrani. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents challenged the arguments raised by the petitioner's counsel and has further urged that against the same order Raj Narain and Rajdeo had fi.ed a writ petition No. 115 of 1974. This petition was dismissed by this court on 15th February, 1974 in limine. A review application was also filed which was also dismissed by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was) on 11-7-1974. He has further pointed out that in fact the case of the petitioner Radhey Shyam was being conducted before the consolidation authorities by Raj Narain and Rajdeo and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court for having concealed this fact from this court that a petition filed by Raj Narain and Rajdeo had already been dismissed by this court in limine on 15th February, 1974. I have examined the record of writ petition No. 115 of 1974. This writ petition was filed on 3-1-1974. On 15th February 1974 it came up for admission before Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was). He passed the following order :- "I do not find any error much less a manifest error of law to warrant any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." 5. The present petition was filed in this court on 17th October, 1974. On a perusal of the paragraphs of this petition, it is clear that the petitioner Radhey Shyam concealed this fact from this court that an earlier petition filed by Raj Narain and Rajdeo, his real brothers, who were conducting the case on his behalf before the courts below had already been dismissed by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was) on 15th February 1974. It cannot possibly be believed that Radhey Shyam did not have knowledge of the writ petition no. 115 of 1974 or the order passed thereon, as, in fact, it was the first time in this court that Radhey Shyam woke up and filed a writ petition by his own name. It cannot possibly be believed that Radhey Shyam did not have knowledge of the writ petition no. 115 of 1974 or the order passed thereon, as, in fact, it was the first time in this court that Radhey Shyam woke up and filed a writ petition by his own name. As I have already stated earlier, he did not file any appeal even against the order of the Consolidation Officer and it was only Raj Narain and Rajdeo who had filed the appeal before the said authority. This conduct on the part of Radhey Shyam is highly reprehensible and cannot possibly be condoned. He also played fraud on his counsel by not disclosing this fact because when he filed the writ petition, he filed it through another counsel, not the counsel who had filed the writ petition earlier. In view of these circumstances, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is correct that with this conduct the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But inspite of this I thought it proper in the interest of justice not to deny the petitioner a right to be heard so that I am satisfied in regard to the merits of the petition also and in regard to the validity of the order passed by the consolidation authorities. 6. The sole question which remained in dispute was whether Ram Kishore died in 1936 or in 1956. THE case of the petitioner was that he died in 1936 while the case of Smt. Indrani was that he died in 1956. THE Consolidation Officer recorded a categorical finding of fact that Ram Kishore died in 1956. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation reversed this finding. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation again set aside the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and after examining the evidence on record, recorded a categorical finding of fact that Ram Kishore died in 1956, thereby accepting the case of Smt. Indrani. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the decision on merits is concerned, a categorical finding of fact had been recorded that Ram Kishore died in 1956. This finding of fact, therefore, has to be accepted in the present petition. The petitioner, however, as I have already stated above, has challenged this finding on two grounds. 7. It is, therefore, clear that so far as the decision on merits is concerned, a categorical finding of fact had been recorded that Ram Kishore died in 1956. This finding of fact, therefore, has to be accepted in the present petition. The petitioner, however, as I have already stated above, has challenged this finding on two grounds. 7. So far as the first contention is concerned, I have examined the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has examined the death register which was filed to establish that Ram Kishore died in 1936. It has been found by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the register was in the form of loose sheets. There was no seal on the pages of the register and there were also no signatures. It was in view of these circumstances that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not believe the death register of 1936. It was open to the authorities on the face of the above circumstances to either believe or disbelieve the document. The circumstance that the register was in loose sheets, bearing no seal and had no signatures, cannot be called an irrelevant consideration for disbelieving the death register of 1936. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that no reasons have been given for disbelieving the death register of 1936 or that the finding of fact in this regard was in any manner vitiated by an error of law. 8. In regard to the entry in the records of the Manikarnika Ghat of the year 1956 about the death of Ram Kishore having taken place ha the year 1956, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has examined the matter and has accepted the reasonings given by the Consolidation Officer and thereafter accepted the said register as a valid piece of evidence to establish the death of Ram Kishore in the year 1956. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, in fact, had completely ignored this most material piece of evidence filed on behalf of Smt. INdrani and had brushed it aside merely by observing that the evidence produced for his death in 1956 was concocted. No reason has been given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation for discarding this piece of evidence. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, in fact, had completely ignored this most material piece of evidence filed on behalf of Smt. INdrani and had brushed it aside merely by observing that the evidence produced for his death in 1956 was concocted. No reason has been given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation for discarding this piece of evidence. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was consequently within his jurisdiction to examine the said register and thereafter conclude that the document was a valid piece of evidence which could be relied upon in respect of the finding that Ram Kishore died in the year 1956. IN view of the above, I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not substantiated. In the result, I find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. The proceedings in remand in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation should be decided by the officer concerned very expeditiously as far as possible within three months from the date when the certified copy of the judgment is produced before the authorities concerned. Petition dismissed.