JUDGMENT S.R. Misra, J. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31-12-1980 passed by Join Director of Consolidation allowing revision of the respondent No. 2 setting aside the judgment and order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Khata No. 58 of village Mahughat and 126 of Kohil Misir were recorded in the name of Mohd. Raza in the basis year. An admitted pedigree is given below: 3. An objection was filed by the petitioners claiming that their father Ajeemullah purchased the disputed land from Smt. Jainab but Mohd. Raza go the sale-deed executed in his own name. 4. Abdul Hammed son of Mohd. Raza contested the objection and claimed that Mohd. Raza alone was bhumidhar of the disputed land and petitioners did not have any share over the same. 5. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the petitioner but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeal preferred by them holding them to be the co-tenure holder along with Abdul Hameed. Abdul Hameed, dissatisfied with the appellate order wen on revision which was allowed by the impugned order of joint Director of Consolidation and the appellate order was set aside and hence this writ petition. 6. Sri Sashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that while deciding the revision the Joint Director of Consolidation filed to record any relevant finding. He only narrated the case of the parties, made certain observations and set aside the appellate order, which cannot be held to be a judgment or decision in the eye of law. 7. On the other hand, Sri U.K. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents justified the impugned order. His contention was that once it is proved that the property was purchased by Mohd. Raza, the burden of proof layon the petitioners to establish that it was the acquisition by common ancestor, Ajeemullah. The petitioners have failed to discharge the burden. He next urged that on the own showing of the petitioners, they have alleged that the property was purchased by Mohd. Raza and it was benami transaction. For this submission, the referred to ground No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioners have failed to discharge the burden. He next urged that on the own showing of the petitioners, they have alleged that the property was purchased by Mohd. Raza and it was benami transaction. For this submission, the referred to ground No. 1 of the writ petition. In view of the recent Supreme court decisions, it will have retrospective effect and as such, even if the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation is considered to be not happily worded, there can be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. A persual of the judgment, and order of the Joint Director of Consolidation as well as Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would reveal that they have failed to determine the actual dispute between the parties and their orders cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law. True it is, that the Consolidation Authorities are not required to writ judgment like the civil Courts. But, at the same time, it cannot be denied that when these authorities are constituted under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, they are called upon to decide the disputes between the parties in respect of their properties after considering the entire material evidence available on record and the relevant law on the subject. In the instant case, both the appellate as well as revisional courts have failed to record a positive finding, one way or their other, as to whether the property was purchased from the fund of common ancestor or from the own found of Mohd. Raza The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has observed that from the evidence on record, it is not proved that there was any source of income, so far as Mohd. Raza is concerned. He also observed that there was any force in the argument of the petitioners that the money spent for purchase of disputed land was sent through Money Order by the common ancestor Ajeemullah and it was not possible to keep so old money order receipts in tact. Despite these observations, he has not recorded a definite finding. Appraisal of oral evidence by both the courts below is also unsatisfactory and except some general observations, the material evidence had not been considered. Despite these observations, he has not recorded a definite finding. Appraisal of oral evidence by both the courts below is also unsatisfactory and except some general observations, the material evidence had not been considered. The following observations of Joint Director of Consolidation make it crystal clear; that his judgment and order are not based on consideration of evidence and proper adjudication of the respective cases of the parties but parties but they are whimsical : "Mohammad Raza ki is Bemani Ki Allah Ke Saamne Uske du Parinam Ke Leye Rakh Sakte Hai Parantu Manushya Dwara " Such observations are not expected from an Authority who is vested with the power to decide a matter on question of fact as well as law. When the contesting respondent was making a claim of exclusive ownership, a positive finding should have been recorded as to whether Mohd. Raza did have sufficient means to purchase the property or not. In the absence of such finding, the judgments and order of courts below cannot be sustained in law and they deserve to be quashed. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 31-12-1980 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation as well as that of Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 30-8-1980 are set aside. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in the body of this judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs.