JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - After losing the case before all the three Consolidation authorities the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order. The dispute hinges on the point whether the petitioner was son of Chotkan. The Consolidation Officer and th& Settlement officer, Consolidation, held that the petitioner failed to prove that he was s n of Chotkan. The matter came before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who affirmed the said finding. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidates shows that he concentrated more on the kutumb register. In the kutumb register the difference of age between the son and the mother is four years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the view that there could not be difference of four years between the age of the son and the mother, as such he cannot be son of Chotkan. The lady did not appear in the witness box. Besides the kutumb register, the Deputy Director of Consolidation being the last court of fact, should have analysed each and every aspect of the case and considered all admissible evidence on record but he was influenced more by the difference of four years between the age of the son and the mother shown in the kutumb register which is prepared by third persons after making enquiry even for others and was not a strong piece of evidence for the purpose it has been relied on. As such, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 2. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 17.10.78 (Annexure3) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and he is directed to restore back the revision application to its original number and hear and decide the same after taking into consideration all the admissible and relevant evidence on record. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition allowed)