JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J.- In this writ petition Dubari Singh and others have challenged the order dated 29-1-1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 24-8 1968 of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 2. It appears that in the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Dashrath father of the petitioners. Manikraj, father of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming co-tenancy in the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer who heard the objection rejected it by his order dated 5-6-1967. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, Manikraj filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was allowed on 24-8-1968. The petitioners filed revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed on 29-1-1974. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 in spite of service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed before me that the Consolidation Officer has rejected the objection of Manikraj, father of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that although the land in dispute was co-tenancy of both the parties initially but as a result of judgment dated 17-12-1948 passed in the partition suit it came of the exclusive share of Dasrath, father of the petitioners but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has reversed the finding of the Consolidation Officer without considering this aspect of the case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also made the same mistake while dismissing their revision. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of record in deciding the same in favour of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 without considering the effect of the judgment dated 17-12-1948 passed in the partition suit which was the sole basis of the order of the Consolidation Officer. 5. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners finds support from the orders of the consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Officer had rejected the objection of the father of the opposite parties nos. 5. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners finds support from the orders of the consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Officer had rejected the objection of the father of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of the judgment dated 17-12-1948 in partition suit while the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have not even considered the effect of this judgment. On the other hand, they have decided the case in favour of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 with the observation that when the parties were co-tenants initially it is not clear as to how the petitioners became sole tenants of the land in dispute. In my opinion the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of record in deciding the case in favour of the opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 without considering the effect of the judgment dated 17-12-1948 passed in the partition proceedings which formed the basis of the order of the Consolidation Officer. 6. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. However instead of quashing both the orders, I quash the subsequent order dated 29-1-1974 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and send the case back to him for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own costs.