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 17th May, 1974 of the Assistant Director or Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, camp at Etah, allowing the revision of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4. 2. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4. 3. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming sirdari rights in it under Section 210 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The objection was contested by the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioner has never been in possession of the land in dispute and therefore, the question of his perfecting any right in it, did not arise. 4. The Consolidation Officer, Aliganj, who heard the objection, allowed it on 8th April, 1973. The opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4 filed an appeal to the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on 20th July, 1973. The opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4 thereafter filed revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation on 17th May, 1974, 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Director of Consolidation has neither considered the oral evidence of the petitioner nor has he dealt with the reasoning's given by the two subordinate courts for believing the case of the petitioner and disbelieving that of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 and has allowed the revision in most summary and arbitrary manner. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Director of Consolidation has not considered the oral evidence of the petitioner while deciding the case against him. He has also not dealt the reasoning's given by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding the case in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4. He has also not dealt the reasoning's given by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding the case in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4. The Assistant Director of Consolidation was passing an order of reversal and, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to deal with the reasoning's given by the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and also to consider the entire evidence on record which was relied upon by the two subordinate courts. The Assistant Director of Consolidation not having done so committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4 has tried to support the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation on the ground that the oral evidence led by the petitioner was of hardly any evidentiary value and that the Assistant Director of Consolidation has considered the entire documentary evidence of the parties while allowing his revision. I am not satisfied with the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite-parties Nos. 2 to 4 on this point. Once it is found that the Assistant Director of Consolidation failed to consider oral evidence of the petitioner while setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two subordinate courts in favour of the petitioner his order cannot be sustained on the ground that the oral evidence led by the petitioner was of no evidentiary value. It was the duty of the Assistant Director of Consolidation to consider the oral evidence of the petitioner and he has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not doing so. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Director of Consolidation failed to consider his oral evidence and not that he discarded his oral evidence illegally and once this argument is found correct on the perusal of the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation the writ petition has to be allowed. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17th day May, 1974, of the Assistant Director of Consolidation. U. P. Lucknow Camp at Etah, is quashed. The Assistant Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The order dated 17th day May, 1974, of the Assistant Director of Consolidation. U. P. Lucknow Camp at Etah, is quashed. The Assistant Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision of the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The parties bear their own costs.