S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. This writ peti tion, under Article 226 of the Constitu tion, has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 4-3-1976 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts for the purpose of the writ petition are that, the plot in ques tion was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Har Kishan and others as Sirdar and the names of the petitioners were recorded in Clause 9. The petitioners filed objection claiming sirdari right on the basis of their continuous pos session over the plot in dispute. The claim of the petitioners was denied by the respondents by filing reply under Section9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. It was stated that the petitioners were never in possession and the entry made is also incorrect and be expugned. 3. It appears that the petitioners in support of their contention filed Khasra of 1366 to 1377 Fasli. They have also ex amined themselves as witnesses. The Con solidation Officer has held that in Khasra 1366 to 1377 Fasli the petitioners Ram Lai and Sri Ram are recorded in sub-tenant column, as such, they have proved their possession and held that the petitioners are sirdars and ordered for expunging the names of the contesting respondents. Ag grieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was filed by Har Kishan. The appellate authority also considered the statement of Har Kishan ind held that the statement of Har Kishan is that Ram Lai was recorded as sub-tenant and that he was taking copy of the revenue extract every year. The find ing recorded by the Consolidation Officer was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order a revision was filed before the Dy. Director of Con solidation, who allowed the revision and set aside the finding recorded by the Con solidation Officer as well as by the Settle ment Officer Consolidation and also ex pugned Clause 9 entry in favour of the petitioners. (The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation have filed the present writ petition in this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed. In reply to the counter- affidavit a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. (The petitioners aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation have filed the present writ petition in this Court. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed. In reply to the counter- affidavit a rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. In counter- affidavit and rejoinder affidavit parties have reiterated the facts as stated by them before the Consolidation authorities. therefore, it is not necessary to mention in detail the contents of the counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the par ties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners have taken objection that they have matured their right as sirdar on account of continuous possession for more than 12 years, there fore, the entry in Clause 9 was against the law and they should have been recorded as sirdar. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in the documents) which were filed by the petitioners their names were recorded as sirdar but the aforesaid documents were not properly read by the Dy. Director of Consolidation rather -the has misinter preted the same, as such, the finding recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolidation is contriary to the facts available on the record and also against the law. It is stated that Hari Kishan appeared as witness and he has admitted that the petitioners were recorded in shikmi column. 6. Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged and opposed the contention raised on be half of the petitioners. He has submitted that from a perusal of Annexure-1 to the writ petition it is clear that the petitioners were basing their rights on the basis of Clause 9 entry, therefore, they cannot take any undue advantage of the statement made by Hari Kishan. The finding recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolida tion is that for the first time the names of the petitioners were recorded in Clause 9 by order of some body. From the order it is not clear as to who passed the order and when this order was passed and regarding which plot this order was passed. The Dy. The finding recorded by the Dy. Director of Consolida tion is that for the first time the names of the petitioners were recorded in Clause 9 by order of some body. From the order it is not clear as to who passed the order and when this order was passed and regarding which plot this order was passed. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has rightly held that such entry cannot be believed and the petitioners have failed to prove their con tinuous possession over the property in dispute, ft is further submitted that admit tedly when the names of the petitioners were recorded and they were original tenure-holders therefore, in this case it was the duty and responsibility of the per sons who has filed objection is proved that the entry is contrary to law or they have perfected their rights. Since from the find ing recorded by the Dy. Director of Con solidation that the petitioners have no right and that too without any order of the Court or authority, issuance of P. A. 10 is not in accordance with law and no right can accrue claiming right on the basis of such entry. It is not open to the Court to hold for the first time that he has acquired right which was in sub-tenancy column of the revenue record. The finding of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is based on materials available on record after con sidering the revenue entries and the ad mission made by the petitioners in their own statement as well as on the basis of the pleading which they took in their objec tion and thus it cannot be said that the order was illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that it is true that a person who has claimed possession is required to prove, firstly, that the entry was made in accordance with law, second ly, that he continued in possession for more than statutory period and acquired sirdari right. He must prove that the basic year entry was wrong and there is no need to continue the entry in Clause 9. In this case if it is held that the petitioners have not acquired right on the basis of the entry then certainly they will not acquire sirdari right. He must prove that the basic year entry was wrong and there is no need to continue the entry in Clause 9. In this case if it is held that the petitioners have not acquired right on the basis of the entry then certainly they will not acquire sirdari right. But apart from that as the finding of the Consolidation Officer was to the effect that the petitioners were recorded as sub tenants and the Dy. Director of Consolida tion has not considered the facts of this entry rather he has held otherwise I am of the view that the Dy; Director of Con solidation should have considered the entry while reversing the order of the Con solidation Officer. It may be that the Order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is incorrect but nevertheless he has not set aside the finding recorded by the Con solidation Officer that the petitioners are entered as Shikmi. Therefore,, the matter should be reconsidered by the Dy. Director of Consolidation apart from the statement of Har Kishan wherein he has stated that he was taking revenue extract every year in which Ram Lai was recorded as Shikmi. Since the point requires reconsideration, I, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation and remand the case back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to restore the revision to its original number and decide it afresh firstly, on the point that 1366 to 1377 fasli mention the name of the petitioners or not and if so then what right has been acquired by the petitioners and secondly, whether there is statement of Har Kishan admitting the petitioner as sub-tenant. He will give opportunity to the parties of hearing and as per observation of this Court shall reconsider the case afresh. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 4-3- 1976 is hereby set aside. The matter is being sent back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation to decide the case afresh after giving oppor tunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no order as to cost. 9. The case appears to be old one. Therefore, the Dy. Director of Consolida tion will decide the matter at an early date. Parties shall also co-operate in deciding the case. 10. Director of Consolidation to decide the case afresh after giving oppor tunity of hearing to the parties. There shall be no order as to cost. 9. The case appears to be old one. Therefore, the Dy. Director of Consolida tion will decide the matter at an early date. Parties shall also co-operate in deciding the case. 10. Sri A. K. Dwivedi, learned Coun sel for the petitioners has argued the case at length. Petition allowed. .