JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition arises out of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against the order dated 4th September, 1973 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun, allowing the revision of the opposite party No. 4. 2. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The opposite party no. 4 filed objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming that the land in dispute was mortgaged to him by the petitioner and as such he became bhumidhar in view of Section 164 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act. The objection was contested by the petitioner on the ground that although he had mortgaged the land in dispute to the opposite party no. 4 but had never delivered possession of the land to him. 3. The Consolidation Officer who heard the objection dismissed it on 30th November, 1972 with the finding that the opposite party no. 4 was never put in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the mortgage deed. The opposite party no. 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was dismissed by him on 2-5-73. The opposite party no. 4 filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on 4-9-1973. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No body has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 4 to oppose the writ petition in spite of service. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not legally justified in allowing the revision of the opposite party no. 4 without considering the entire evidence on record. According to him the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have recorded specific finding that the opposite party no. 4 was never put in possession of the land in dispute in pursuance of the mortgage deed and therefore the provisions of Section 164 of the U.P. Z. A & L. R. Act were not attracted but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has reversed the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below without considering the evidence on record. He further argued that in view of the fact that the petitioner having admitted that he had mortgaged the land in dispute to the opposite party no. He further argued that in view of the fact that the petitioner having admitted that he had mortgaged the land in dispute to the opposite party no. 4 the main point tor consideration for the courts below was as to whether the opposite party no. 4 was also put in possession thereof. This being so, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not legally justified in deciding the case against the petitioner merely on the ground that in the mortgage deed itself it was mentioned that the possession was also delivered to the opposite party no. 4. 6. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not legally justified in allowing the revision of the opposite party no. 4 without considering the entire evidence on record. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would show that he has not even considered the evidence of the petitioner which was relied upon by the Consolidation Officer ana the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) while deciding the casein his favour and has allowed the revision merely on the ground that in the mortgage deed itself it was mentioned that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the opposite party no. 4. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued certain other points including that in view of the fact that the petitioner was not the sole tenant of the land in,dispute he was not entitled to mortgage the same to the opposite party no. 4 and that at any rate there was no question of the opposite party no. 4 being put in possession of the land in dispute when there were other co-tenants of the land in dispute and that as the land in dispute was mortgaged to the opposite party no. 4 for adjusting the interest only the provisions of Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act were not attracted. 8. In view of the fact that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be quashed on the first ground alone, it is not necessary for me to examine the other arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun dated 4th September, 1974 is quashed. 9. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jalaun dated 4th September, 1974 is quashed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision of the opposite party no. 4 afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.