JUDGMENT K N. Misra, J. - The dispute in the present case relates to plot No 1332/1 of Khata No. 179 situated in village Phoolpur, Pargana Barausa, Tahsil and District Sultanpur In the basic year Khatauni the said land was recorded in the name of Radhey Shyam, opposite party No. 4, and Ram Pratap. Ram Pratap had died prior to starting of the consolidation proceedings in the village. He is said to have executed will dated 2121972 in favour of the petitioners, who had applied for mutation of their names. But these proceedings abated as the village was brought under consolidation operations. The petitioners, thereupon, filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') praying that their names be recorded in place of deceased Ram Pratap, over the land in question. This case was registered as case No. 5281 and appears to have been decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 1811978. The opposite party no. 3, Bhagwandas son of Abhai Ram, had also filed an objection under Section 9A (2) of 'the Act' claiming to be cotenure holder along with the recorded person alleging that the land in dispute is ancestral property and he has got a share therein. This case No. 5675 was also decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the same day, i.e. 1811978 on the basis of alleged reconciliation between opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. When the petitioners came to know of the said order dated 1811978 passed in case No. 675, they preferred appeal, challenging that order. This appeal was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, vide order dated 491978, and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for being decided on merits, according to law. The opposite party No. 3, Bhagwandas, preferred revision against said order, which was allowed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, vide order dated 731979, and the order dated 1811978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was maintained, setting aside the order passed by the appellate court. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. The opposite party No. 3, Bhagwandas, preferred revision against said order, which was allowed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, vide order dated 731979, and the order dated 1811978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was maintained, setting aside the order passed by the appellate court. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S. Chaudhary, urged that the order dated 1811978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was illegal, and without jurisdiction, and as such, the same was rightly set aside by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal vide order dated 491978. His contention was that the case could not be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as one of tile recorded tenure holders namely, Ram Pratap had died and, as such, there was no question of reconciliation between the parties. Learned counsel urged that the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in allowing the revision filed by opposite party No. 3 and in restoring the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which was per se wrong and without jurisdiction. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, urged that the name of Bhagwan Das was ordered to be recorded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceedings between Bhagwan Das and Radhey Shyam, the opposite party No. 4. learned counsel urged that Radhey Shyam was himself the heir and successor of Ram Pratap, the recorded cotenure holder, and, as such, the conciliation proceedings were validly taken and recorded by the Assistant Consolidation officer. According to him, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed no error in maintaining the order dated 1811978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in reconciliation proceedings in exercise of powers under subclause (1) of Section 9A of 'the Act.' Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I find much substance in what has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has got jurisdiction to settle disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be, by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and he can pass orders on the basis of conciliation between the parties. 3. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has got jurisdiction to settle disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition as far as may be, by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and he can pass orders on the basis of conciliation between the parties. The disputes can be decided and mistakes can be corrected only on the basis of conciliation between the parties which has to be recorded in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Rule 25A of the Rules and the partition of the holding can also be made by him on the basis of conciliation between the parties. In the conciliation proceedings under subsection (1) of Section 9A of the Act the Assistant Consolidation Officer would settle disputes and pass orders on the basis of compromise between the recorded tenure holders and the claimants, if any. Even if no objection is filed by the claimant, the Assistant Consolidation Officer can settle the dispute and correct the mistakes and effect partition of the holding on the basis of compromise between the parties. In such conciliation proceedings, therefore, the recorded tenure holders are necessary parties and the Assistant Consolidation Officer would settle disputes and correct the mistakes after conciliation has been arrived at between the claimant and the recorded tenureholder appearing before him. If the recorded tenure holders or any one of them had already died, the Assistant Consolidation Officer would not be in a position to decide the dispute on the basis of any conciliation between the parties. He has to refer such cases to the Consolidation Officer for being decided on merits. 4. It is well settled that if conciliation is not arrived at between the recorded tenureholder and the claimant, the case would fall in the category of expression disputed cases and the Assistant Consolidation Officer would forward the case to the Consolidation Officer for being decided on merits. The Assistant Consolidation Officer exercises a limited jurisdiction to settle disputes, correct the mistakes and effect partition only in those cases wherein the parties have reconciled and settled their dispute, having entered into compromise and the conciliation proceedings are faithfully recorded, strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Rule 25A of the Rules. .Section 9A of 'the Act' divides the cases in two categories, the first consisting of cases in which conciliation has been arrived at; and the second, of remaining disputed cases. .Section 9A of 'the Act' divides the cases in two categories, the first consisting of cases in which conciliation has been arrived at; and the second, of remaining disputed cases. Any dispute in respect of which conciliation has not been arrived at, would fall in the category of remaining disputed cases which the Assistant Consolidation Officer, would be required to forward, with his report, to the Consolidation Officer for disposal. The Assistant Consolidation Officer is not vested with the jurisdiction to decide the contested cases, or to determine the right of parties after taking evidence tendered by them in support of 'their cases. If the recorded tenureholders or any of them has not put in appearance, the Assistant Consolidation Officer would not have jurisdiction to decide dispute on the basis of conciliation between some of the recorded persons and the claimants appearing before him. Such a case would fall in the category of disputed cases because the recorded person who has not put in appearance, would not be taken to have given his tacit consent, by his absence, to the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. So also will be the case, where the recorded person has died and a mutation application has been filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. In such cases the Assistant Consolidation Officer would not be able to determine the fact as to who is the real heir and successor unless he records evidence of the claimant for mutation and determines the claim on the merit on the basis of evidence tendered before him, which cannot be legally done by him, as he cannot decide case recording evidence. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, therefore, cannot exercise jurisdiction to pass order for mutation in such cases on the basis of conciliation between the claimant for mutation and the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and other claimants for mutation, if any, or with the other recorded cotenureholder. Such a case would also fall in the category of disputed cases because in such cases there cannot be conciliation between the parties unless it is determined on merits as to who is the real heir and successor. Thus, such cases have got to be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer would be required to refer the case to the Consolidation Officer for determining the claim with regard to successor of the deceased tenure holder. Thus, such cases have got to be forwarded to the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer would be required to refer the case to the Consolidation Officer for determining the claim with regard to successor of the deceased tenure holder. Such cases cannot, at all, be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the conciliation proceedings before him. 5. In Jai Ram v. Assistant Director of Consolidation. Jaunpur and others (1982 RD 28) it has also been held that where there were two applications pending before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass order in either of them as two sets of claimants had applied for mutation before him in respect of the same land. 6. In the present case the petitioners filed objection claiming to be heirs and successors of the deceased tenure holder Ram Pratap on the basis of alleged will dated 2121972 executed by him. This case was registered as case No. 5281. The opposite party No. 3 had also filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the Act claiming to be cotenure holder. This case was registered as case No. 5676. In these circumstances, since there were two separate objections filed by two claimants, the Assistant Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to decide either of them. In the present case the Assistant Consolidation Officer appears to have decided both the objections on 1811978 by separate orders. In case No. 5281, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 1811978, had allowed mutation in the name of the petitioners in place of deceased cotenure holder Ram Pratap and by separate order dated1811978 passed in case No. 5675, he had ordered the name of opposite party No. 3 to be recorded as cotenure holder along with Radhey Shyam by expunging the name of Ram Pratap. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, thus, acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing orders in both the aforesaid cases and these orders, being without jurisdiction, deserved to be quashed. The Assistant Consolidation Officer should have consolidated both these cases and should have forwarded them to the Consolidation Officer for being decided on merits. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, thus, appears to have rightly set aside the order dated 1811978 passed in case No. 5675 against which appeal was filed before him and had remanded the case for being decided on merits. 7. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, thus, appears to have rightly set aside the order dated 1811978 passed in case No. 5675 against which appeal was filed before him and had remanded the case for being decided on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, Sri S. K. Mehrotra, pointed out that by separate order dated 881978 the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation had set aside the order dated 18178 passed in favour of the petitioners in mutation case No. 5281. Thus, I I find that both the orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer were set aside by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, in these circumstances, should have maintained the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and he has acted illegally in maintaining the orders dated 1811978 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in case No. 5675, which, as already observed above, was per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order dated 531979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur is hereby quashed and the order dated 491978 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation is maintained. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide both the cases, after taking evidence of the parties, on merits. 9. Sri S. K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, had pointed out that the objection filed by opposite party No. 3 Bhagwandas is missing from the record, and, as such, the Consolidation Officer will reconstitute the file and after obtaining a copy of that objection, proceed to decide the same on merits along with the objection filed by the petitioners in respect of their respective claims. 10. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. (Petition allowed)