JUDGMENT B. L. Yadava, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 11-4-1986 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision filed by respondent No. 3 Smt. Ramwati. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, were that in the basic year Shrinath son of Chhedi Singh was recorded and after his death the names of one Bhagirathi Singh, Bhaggi Singh, Sheo Bhajan Singh and Hira Singh were recorded. Under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) three objections were filed by one Bhagirath Singh claiming himself to be nephew of Sri Nath Singh, the second objection was filed by Smt. Ramawati, Respondent No. 3 claiming herself to be the daughter of Srinath Singh and the third objection was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the sister's son of Srinath Singh. 3. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 1-3-1977 decided the case in favour of the petitioner holding him to be the sister's son of Srinath Singh and directed {that the names of Bhagirathi Singh etc. may be expunged. Against this order an appeal was filed which was allowed on 9-9-1977 holding that Smt, Ramawati, Respondent No. 3, is the daughter of Srinath Singh deceased. The petitioner preferred a revision which was allowed by the order dated 21-4-1979 and the case was remanded to the Consolidation officer to take evidence including that of the pradhan and some members of the Consolidation Committee and the fact may be ascertained about the heirship of Srinath deceased that the plots in dispute may not be taken by some unauthorised person. A true copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure 3' to the petition. Thereafter statements of other witnesses including the pradhan, Dbaram Pal, Shivra-khan Singh, Bhagi Dayal Singh, Turang Singh, Ram Saran Singh, Smt. Ramawati and Jogeshwar were recorded. This fact has been stated in paragraph 8 (page 68 of the paper book) in the impugned order. The appeal against the order of the Consolidation officer was again allowed by order dated 21-2-1984 and the petitioner was held to be the sister's son of the deceased Srinath Singh. Against that order the revision was filed by Respondent No. 3 and the same was allowed by the impugned order against which the present petition has been filed. 4. The appeal against the order of the Consolidation officer was again allowed by order dated 21-2-1984 and the petitioner was held to be the sister's son of the deceased Srinath Singh. Against that order the revision was filed by Respondent No. 3 and the same was allowed by the impugned order against which the present petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.N. Bhargava urged that the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Smt. Ramawati Respondent No. 3 was the daughter of Srinath Singh was perverse inasmuch as the statements of five witnesses examined by the consolidation officer after remand have not been considered, that the finding in the earlier judgment became final as the same were not challenged by Respondent No. 3 and that the impugned order was an order of reversal and the entire evidence including the statements of five witnesses examined by the Consolidation officer after the order of remand must have been considered. Reliance was placed on Nanha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, ( 1975 AWC 1 ). 5. As regards the first point that the statements of five witnesses examined before the consolidation officer in pursuance of the order dated 21-4-1979 have not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while allowing the revision of Respondent No. 3 suffice it to say that in paragraph 8 of the impugned order (at page 68 of the paper book) the names of all the witnesses examined from either side have been stated. Statements of these five witnesses examined after the order of remand including Ram Saran, Balram, Surajpal, Dharampal, Turang and Dharam Pal Singh have also been stated. Thereafter general observations have been made in respect of all the witnesses examined from either side and the Deputy Director of Consolidation under para 9 of the impugned order has recorded a finding that the witnesses examined on behalf of the either side the petitioner or Respondent No. 3, have supported their versions. There are infirmities in the statements of all the witnesses. It has been stated under paragraph 9 that much reliance has been placed on the documentary evidence and on their basis Respondent No. 3 was held to be the daughter of Srinath Singh deceased. There are infirmities in the statements of all the witnesses. It has been stated under paragraph 9 that much reliance has been placed on the documentary evidence and on their basis Respondent No. 3 was held to be the daughter of Srinath Singh deceased. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the statement of five witnesses examined before the consolidation officer after the order of remand have not been considered. 6. In Nanha v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (Supra) it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court that if certain findings are based on no evidence or that the findings are perverse, in that event it may be a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid case. But suffice it to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation was conscious of the fact that five witnesses were examined before the Consolidation Officer after order of remand. Their names have already been stated along with other witnesses in paragraph 8 of the impugned order and a general discussion of the whole evidence has also been made which equally applies to the statements of the five witnesses. I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the statements of these five witnesses. Even though by names he did not refer to the statements of these witnesses, but certainly he has pointed out infirmities in the statement of Dharampal witness, one of the five witnesses, examined by the Consolidation Officer after order of remand. I do not find any substance in this argument. 7. The second point urged is about the finality of the order of remand. The witnesses examined consequent upon the order of remand dated 21-4-79 has been discussed and considered by the present Deputy Director of Consolidation and it cannot be said that their statements have been totally ignored. I do not find any substance in this argument. 7. The second point urged is about the finality of the order of remand. The witnesses examined consequent upon the order of remand dated 21-4-79 has been discussed and considered by the present Deputy Director of Consolidation and it cannot be said that their statements have been totally ignored. In case the names of the witnesses would not have been mentioned something could have been said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation ignored the statements of the aforesaid five witnesses whereas he has discussed the statements of five witnesses and has also considered infirmities found in the statements of the witnesses and in the earlier evidence, I am, therefore, of the view that even if the order of remand may be taken to be final but the said order of remand has been complied with and there is no illegality on that count that the order of remand was not challenged by filing a writ petition in this Court. 8. As regards the next point about the present order being an order of reversal and that the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have considered the entire evidence on the record I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the entire relevant evidence on the record, and his findings cannot be said to be perverse. The finding to be recorded was as to whether Smt. Ramawati, Respondent No. 3, was the daughter of Srinath Singh. This was a finding of fact. It has been recorded after appraisal of the evidence on record that the Respondent No. 3 Smt. Ramawati was the daughter of Srinath and the petitioner was not the sister's son of the deceased Srinath Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that if the petitioner can be held to be sister's son in view of the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the daughter either married or unmarried was preferential heir than the sister's son. Consequently, the petitioner cannot get the light of inheritance in the plots in dispute after the death of Srinath Singh. 9. Consequently, the petitioner cannot get the light of inheritance in the plots in dispute after the death of Srinath Singh. 9. In the last the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted to summon the record in order to ascertain the correct nature of the documentary and oral evidence of the case, under the circumstances of the case I am of the view that there was no necessity for summoning the record of the case as from the discussions made in the impugned order it is clear that the evidence has been correctly appreciated and correct inference has been drawn. It has consistently been held including in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, ( AIR 1960 SC 100 ) that as regards the inference to be drawn from the oral and documentary evidence there can be no error apparent on the face of the record. I did not find any error in the findings recorded on the basis of the appraisal of the evidence on record of the case. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore, the petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, in limine.