JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25-7-1974, 2. The dispute relates to plot no. 113 recorded in the name of the petitioner in the basic year as Bhumidhari. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed objections under Section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming their co-tenancy right over the plot in dispute on the ground that the land in dispute was acquired when the family was joint, hence they have got a share over the same. The claim of the respondents was contested by the petitioner claiming that the land was acquired by Ram Sewak exclusively after partition and the petitioner had been in possession exclusively over the same. The Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation by their orders dated 27-8-1973 and 21-1-1974 held that the land in dispute was acquired by Ram Sewak alone and as such the objections of the respondent was rejected. Aggrieved against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21-1-1974 a revision was filed by the contesting respondents before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the same by his order dated 25-7-1974. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed error on the face of the record in as much as without considering the oral evidence he has allowed the revision and another mistake committed by him was that without giving any reasons the Deputy Director of Consolidation has placed reliance on the entries which were not in accordance with law. 5. Coming to the first question the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that the oral evidence has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. According to him it was not at all necessary to consider the oral evidence as the case could have been decided on the basis of the entries in the record. In my opinion the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is wholly unfounded. I have perused the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and find that the oral evidence has not at all been discussed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ignoring that the revision has been allowed. In my opinion the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is wholly unfounded. I have perused the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and find that the oral evidence has not at all been discussed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and ignoring that the revision has been allowed. This is a serious mistake which has been committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Since the writ petition succeeds on this question, there is no necessity of going to the other question. 6. I allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 25-7-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The case is again sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide afresh after looking into the entire evidence, oral and documentary, on the record. Since it is a very old case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this judgment. 7. The writ petition allowed but no order as to costs. 8. A certified copy of this judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within a week from today.