JUDGMENT : S.R. Misra 1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12-3-1982 while deciding two revisions under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Khata no. 125 ka' and 'kha' situated in village Sawai Rampur, Pargana Ghisua was recorded in the names of petitioners and respondent nos, 4 to 6 as Sirdars in the basic year. Petitioners filed an objection to the effect that the disputed plot belonged to one Jagjit Singh and on his death Mst. Umeda, his daughter, became exclusive owner of the same. Petitioners being the nearest surviving heirs of Mst. Umeda, became exclusive owner of the disputed plot on the death of Mst. Umeda. Another objection was filed by the respondents claiming that the properties were acquired by common ancestor Balak Singh and on his death, his sons succeeded Thus the name of Mst. Umeda was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. 3. Both parties led their evidence. Consolidation Officer rejected both the objections and gave half and half share to both the parties by his order dated 22-1-1976. Both the parties preferred appeals but both the appeals were dismissed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his order dated 13-1-1977. Parties went in revisions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of the respondents by his order dated 12-3-1982 and held them the exclusive owner of the disputed plot and dismissed the revision of the petitioners. It is this order, which has been sought to be quashed by the petitioners. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the branch of the petitioners was entered for more than 50 years but by virtue of settlement between the petitioners and the contesting respondents in 1950 the names of the respondents were also entered. Thereafter, those entries continued and remained unchallenged. The long standing entry in the names of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners clearly establishes that the respondents have no right over the disputed property. Thereafter, those entries continued and remained unchallenged. The long standing entry in the names of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners clearly establishes that the respondents have no right over the disputed property. He next contended that the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that petitioners are out of possession and have not paid land revenue is against the evidence on record as the Deputy Director of Consolidation completely failed to consider the revenue receipts filed by the petitioners before him. He also urged that from the agreement, which has been relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is clear that the names of respondents find place in the revenue papers due to mutual consent of the parties, and, therefore, the petitioners have at least half share in the property in dispute. It is now not open for the respondents to take advantage of some entry of 1957. The orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) were based on appraisal of materials available on record but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has completely failed to consider evidence on record and his order is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that long standing entry, by itself, cannot confer any right in favour of any party if it is proved to be incorrect. There are other ingridients as well which are essential for determination of right, title and interest of a party ; they are, payment of rent, actual physical possession and other materials, which may prove right and interest of a party. The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the effect that the disputed property exclusively belongs to the respondents is essentially a finding of fact and does not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the judgments and orders of the Consolidation Authorities, I find that admittedly the disputed plot was exclusively owned by one Balak Singh. After his death, respondents are from the branch of Saltnat Singh and petitioners are from the branch of Ranjeet Singh. Branch of Ranjeet Singh was entered in the revenue papers till 1950. On the basis of some agreement between the parties, the names of the respondents also find place in the revenue papers thereafter. After his death, respondents are from the branch of Saltnat Singh and petitioners are from the branch of Ranjeet Singh. Branch of Ranjeet Singh was entered in the revenue papers till 1950. On the basis of some agreement between the parties, the names of the respondents also find place in the revenue papers thereafter. It is admitted that when the petitioners and respondents are entered in the revenue papers on the basis of the aforesaid agreement having half and half share, the same was not challenged by any party. Thereupon, the petitioners filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition are Land Reforms Act, which was abated on account of commencement of consolidation proceedings, A perusal of objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act which is contained in Annexure A-5 to the writ petition goes to show that every piece of averment made in the agreement of 1950 was acceptable to the respondents. It appears that the intention of both the parties turned dishonest and they started claiming exclusive share over the property in dispute. 6. For the last more than 75 years, petitioners' branch was exlusively entered in the revenue papers and it was within the consent of the petitioners that the respondents ware entered into the revenue papers on the basis of agreement of 1950. The respondents knew fully well that their names were entered on account of agreement by the petitioner and, therefore, their claim for exclusive right is wholly misconceived. From the evidence on record, it is absolutely clear that since 1950 both the parties remained in possession over half and half share over the property in dispute and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, without considering the important and material piece of evidence swayed away by irrelevant considerations and his finding to the effect that the respondents are exclusive owner of the disputed property is based on no evidence or record. Thus, the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous on the face of record. Moreover, the judgment and order passed by Consolidation Officer, and, affirmed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are based on thorough consideration of evidence. Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed those findings without giving any cogent reason. It was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have discussed the evidence while reversing the finding of fact recorded by two Authorities below. Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed those findings without giving any cogent reason. It was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have discussed the evidence while reversing the finding of fact recorded by two Authorities below. So far as land revenue is concerned, once the parties admit that both are entitled to half and half share and the agreement reached between them in 1950 was never challenged by any of the parties, if is always open to recover the land revenue from any party, if it is actually outstanding. Non-payment of land revenue by a party will not confer exclusive right on to the other party by any stretch of imagination. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the View that the petitioners and respondents are entitled to half and half share in the disputed property. The judgment and orders passed by Consolidation Officer and affirmed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are liable to be maintained-. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 12-3+1982 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby set aside, it is held that the petitioners and Respondents are entitled to half and half share in the property in dispute. Since Deputy Director of Consolidation is court of fact, the case is being remanded to him for passing consequential order within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.