JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 29-4-1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 5 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and also against the order dated 11-10-1973 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), The petitioner has prayed for writ of Certiorari quashing the aforesaid orders. 2. The facts of the case are few and simple. Khata nos. 23, 81, 83 and 67 were recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner and Khata No. 68 was recorded in the name of petitioner and respondent no. 1. 3. The petitioner filed objection claiming the sole tenancy rights in Khata No. 65 and alleged that the name of Durga, respondent no. 1 was incorrectly recorded. In respect of remaining khatas, respondent no. 1, Durga, filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming co-tenancy rights and alleging that the land was ancestral and he was one of the co-tenants. Another objection was also filed by Smt. Ram Dulari respondent no. 5 claiming rights in khata nos. 23, 81 and 83 as sole tenant and she also claimed Khata Nos. 67 and 68 as co-tenant. No objection, however, was filed by the Gaon Sabha, respondent no. 6. 4. The Consolidation Officer held that Khata Nos. 23, 81 and 83 was the co-tenant of respondent no. 1 and Ram Sunder and Shyam Sunder etc. In respect of Khata No. 68 the objection of Shyam Sunder was dismissed and in respect of Khata No. 67 the objection of Durga, respondent no. 1 was also dismissed. The objection filed by Smt. Ram Dulari, respondent no. 6 also met the same fate. The petitioner was, however, given share in Khata Nos. 23, 81 and 83. 5. Thereafter appeals were filed by the petitioner, Ram Dulari, respondent no. 5 and also by Durga Prasad and they were partly allowed. The order of the Consolidation Officer in respect of Khata Nos. 23, 81 and 83 was set aside and in respect of these Khatas the name of Gaon Sabha was entered. These three Khatas namely Khata Nos. 23. 81 and 83 are in dispute in the present petition. The revislonal court maintained the appellate order. 6. The order of the Consolidation Officer in respect of Khata Nos. 23, 81 and 83 was set aside and in respect of these Khatas the name of Gaon Sabha was entered. These three Khatas namely Khata Nos. 23. 81 and 83 are in dispute in the present petition. The revislonal court maintained the appellate order. 6. It has already been stated that the Gaon Sabha has not filed any objection on the finding that the petitioner was not the heir of Ram Adhar, who was the last male tenure holder recorded over these khatas and the pedigree alleged by the parties was held to be proved to the effect that Gaya Din was the son of Payag and the petitioner Vishwanath could not inherit the land of these Khatas held by Ram Adhar as he was not the heir under Section 171 and 172 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. The land was accordingly allowed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha. 7. I have heard Sri M. P. Singh and Sri V. D. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. B. Garg for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Radhey Shyam for respondent nos. 1 and 3. 8. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the finding that the petitioner was not the heir of Ram Adhar and that Gaya Din was the son of Payag and he was not the son of Janaki, a mortgage deed dated 20th May, 1981 has been relied upon. The grievance of the petitioner was that his evidence has not been considered, particularly when the Gaon Sabha has not led any evidence against the case of the petitioner. It has been alleged in para 13 of the writ petition that the mortgage deed was filed after the close of evidence and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. 9. Sri Garg on the other hand has urged that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and as the petitioner was not the heir of Ram Adhar hence the land has correctly been directed to vest in the Gaon Sabha. Sri Radhey Shyam also supported the case of the Gaon Sabha. 10. 9. Sri Garg on the other hand has urged that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and as the petitioner was not the heir of Ram Adhar hence the land has correctly been directed to vest in the Gaon Sabha. Sri Radhey Shyam also supported the case of the Gaon Sabha. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the petition should succeed and the matter may be remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding afresh. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation had made reference to the mortgage deed dated 29th May, 1981, but they have not correctly referred to the evidence including the oral evidence led by the petitioner. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the allegations made in the writ petition which is supported by an affidavit it has been held by this Court in Juggilal Kamlapat v. Ram Janki Gupta & another (A.I.R. 1962. Alld. 407), that where some averments in the affidavit are un-controverted and no counter affidavit has been filed, there is no jurisdiction to disbelieve the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition. 11. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this court in the above case. There is no option but to rely upon the allegations made in para 13 of the writ petition that no opportunity was given to the petitioner or respondent no. 1 to lead evidence in rebuttal. The other evidence including the oral evidence on record has also not been properly discussed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation while deciding the claim in respect of Khata Nos. 23, 81 and 83. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has not referred to the oral and documentary evidence on record. The Dy. Director of Consolidation was exercising jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act and his was the final court of fact, it was, therefore, obligatory on his part to have considered the entire oral and documentary evidence before recording a finding. As alleged in para 13 of the writ petition opportunity was not given to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. 12. In view of the discussions made above the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 13. As alleged in para 13 of the writ petition opportunity was not given to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. 12. In view of the discussions made above the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 13. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29-4-1972 is hereby quashed and he is directed to decide the revision afresh after affording opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal and after considering the entire evidence on record. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.