JUDGMENT B.L. Yadava, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18-9-1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the order 2-8-1975 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 2. The facts lie in very narrow compass and they are as under. The plots in dispute by one in Khata Nos. 44, 45, 55 and 100 of village Pure Awadhi, Tapa-puraina, pargana Annoha, Tahsil Harraiya, District Basti and Khata No. 130 of village Amindih, Tappa Ramgarh, Pargana Amroha, Tahsil Rarraiya, District Basti. In the basic year Khata No. 44 was recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha but at the time of partal petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were found in possession. Over Khata No. 45 the names of Petitioner Nos. 6 and 7 along with the Gaon Sabha were recorded. Over Khata No. 55 Smt. Chhabiraji widow of Kaiika was recorded as sirdar and the petitioners were recorded in Varg 9 over Khata No. 100 and over plot No. 222/2 Respondent No. 3 was recorded in varg 4. However, over Khata No. 130 of village Amindih, the names of the petitioners and Gaon Sabha were entered and petitioners were found to be in possession. The Petitioners filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition operations commenced and the same was abated. 3. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alleging that the plots in dispute were earlier entered in the names of Durga Bux Singh, Kalika Singh and Gurbux Singh, in the pedegree given on page 25 of the paper book as also in paragraph No. 19 of the petition. After their death the same was inherited by Smt. Ram Raji, Smt. Chhabiraji and Smt. Dharamraji, their widows respectively. It was alleged by the petitioners that they have inherited the land from Smt. Dharamraji. Prior to the date of vesting and, no case was made out for entering the name of the Gaon Sabha over the plots in dispute. 4. The Gaon Sabha contested the case and alleged that the petitioners have no rights over the plots in dispute, rather the same have vested in the Gaon Sabha. 5. The Consolidation Officer partly decided the case in favour of the petitioners by order dated 7-8-1972. 4. The Gaon Sabha contested the case and alleged that the petitioners have no rights over the plots in dispute, rather the same have vested in the Gaon Sabha. 5. The Consolidation Officer partly decided the case in favour of the petitioners by order dated 7-8-1972. The appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the same were decided substantially against the interest of the petitioners and partly against the interest of the Gaon Sabha. Both the parties preferred revisions. Revision No. 558 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the revision of the Gaon Sabha also met the same fate. Against these orders the present petition has been filed. 6. Sri Swaraj Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was the last court of facts but he did not consider the entire evidence on record rather he has just referred to some of the evidence and on that basis has dismissed the revision of the petitioners. It was further urged that unless it was found that the last tenant died without leaving any heir the land cannot vest in the Gaon Sabha. It is well known principle that under the present set up as the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are concerned a land can vest in the Gaon Sabha only in the event if any tenant recorded as bhumidhar or sirdar having died heirless i.e., without any member of the family and by no other means. In the instant case unless it was proved that the last sir-holder or bhumidhar or sirdar died leaving no heir the land cannot vest in the Gaon Sabha. 7. Sri K.B. Garg, appearing for the Gaon Sabha, on the other hand urged that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was correct and he has considered the evidence and that order was order of affirmance, hence whatever evidence has been referred and considered was sufficient for the disposal of the revision. He has urged that the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were correct and need not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction of this court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without substance. He has urged that the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation were correct and need not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction of this court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not without substance. It is a fact that under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the powers of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are very comprehensive and he being the last court of facts should consider the entire evidence on record and apply his mind to those evidence and he should record a clear finding as to whether he was accepting that evidence or rejecting the same. But in the instant case I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the entire evidence on the record, as the same was considered by the subordinate authorities. Rather just by making reference to the document dated 5-4-1910 (on page 56) and the order of the Tahsildar dated 11-1-1907 he has assumed that these were the only evidence on record even though lie has himself made reference on khewat 1292 Fasli and 1359 Fasli. But he has drawn an incorrect inference of the facts that it has not been proved on behalf of the petitioners that the plots were ever recorded in the names of Smt. Ram Raji and Smt. Dharam Raji widows of Durga Bux Singh and Gurbux Singh respectively. This finding was totally incorrect inasmuch as earlier he has made reference to the registered document dated 5-4-1910 by which Smt. Chhabi Raji accepted that, Birja Singh and Jai Bux Singh, the ancestors were the heirs of Smt, Ram Raji and Smt. Dharam Raji. Hence it was not necessary that it must have been proved by the petitioners that Smt. Ram Raji and Smt. Dharma Raji were ever recorded in the revenue papers. He has decided the revision by recording a finding which was not at all necessary. He has not further considered the fact that the Gaon Sabha and the state can have no rights over any plots unless the recorded tenure holder dies heirless. In view of these facts the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 9. He has not further considered the fact that the Gaon Sabha and the state can have no rights over any plots unless the recorded tenure holder dies heirless. In view of these facts the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the order of the Deputy Director dated 18-9-1975 is quashed and he is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above by considering the entire evidence on record. However, there shall be no order as to costs.