R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) SINCE learned counsel appearing for the parties agreed and requested that this petition may be disposed of finally at this stage, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also does not propose to file any counter-affidavit in this case, this petition is being disposed of at this stage finally. ( 3 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 26. 10. 1998 passed by respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) IT appears that land in dispute was recorded in the name of Muneshwar in the basic year. According to the petitioners, Sri Muneshwar died on 11. 2. 77. After his death petitioners applied for mutation of their names in the revenue papers relating to the land in dispute, on the basis of a will dated 12. 10. 70, alleged to have been executed by Muneshwar in their favour. The claim of the petitioners was objected to and opposed by respondent No. 2. It was pleaded that she happened to be the widow of predeceased son of Muneshwar, namely, Ram Dutt, therefore, she inherited the land in dispute and her name was liable to be mutated in place of Muneshwar. The execution of the Will by Muneshwar in favour of petitioners was also denied by respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) THE parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 5. 9. 81 allowed the objection of the petitioners and directed for mutation of their names in revenue records in place of Muneshwar. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, the opposite party No. 2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, consolidation also affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 10. 10. 83. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 challenged the validity of the order dated 10. 10. 83 passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation before the respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The respondent no. 10. 83. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 challenged the validity of the order dated 10. 10. 83 passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation before the respondent No. 1 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The respondent no. 1 revised the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, consolidation on relevant points involved in the case and allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 26. 10. 1998. Petitioners thereafter approached this Court and filed the present petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of consolidation has exceeded his Jurisdiction in reversing the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation in favour of the petitioners and in substituting his own findings. It was urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot interfere with the findings of fact and has no jurisdiction to substitute his own findings. He could set aside the findings if the said findings were found to be erroneous or perverse and at the best remand the case for decision afresh to the authorities below. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. Jaunpur and others, 1994 All CJ 935 and in Ram Avtar and others v. Ram dhani and others, 1997 (15) LCD 22. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 has supported the validity of the order passed by the respondent No. 1 and it was urged that since the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer. Consolidation were erroneous. therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly set aside the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation and corrected the mistake committed by the said authorities. He has also referred to and relied upon the decision in smt. Baijnathi and another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 1997 (88j (RD) 433. ( 8 ) I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and so carefully perused the record. ( 9 ) SECTION 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides as under: "48. Baijnathi and another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 1997 (88j (RD) 433. ( 8 ) I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and so carefully perused the record. ( 9 ) SECTION 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides as under: "48. Revision and Reference.-- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings ; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in a case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under Section (3 ). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned of opportunity of being heard refer the record of any case or proceedings to the director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1)". ( 10 ) THE scope of power of Deputy Director of Consolidation under aforesaid section came to be considered before the Apex Court in Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra ). The Apex Court after considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties was pleased to rule as under : "it is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity there of it cannot assume to Itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as fact finding authority by appreciating for Itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. " ( 11 ) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar and others v. Ram dhani and others (supra ). ( 12 ) THE decision of learned single Judge of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 in Smt. Baijnathi and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, (1997) RD 433, also supports and not of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. In the said decision it was ruled as under : "there is no complete bar in some circumstances to interfere, if it is a case of no evidence or there is a wrong approach in law in appreciation of evidence on well-settled principle, but the revisional court cannot act as an appellate court and appreciate the evidence. In my considered view the approach of the Deputy Director is patently wrong on the record and also not justified in view of previous findings in Chitwals case. " ( 13 ) IT is well-settled in law that Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of powers under section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below and can set aside the said findings if they are found to be erroneous, perverse not based on any evidence or illegal, but he cannot substitute his own findings after reappraisal of the evidence on the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation could at the best remand the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation or the Consolidation officer, as the case may be. for decision afresh. Therefore on the basis of the decision in Smt. Baijnaths case (supra) no benefit can be given to the respondent No. 2 in the present case. ( 14 ) IN view of the decision of the Apex Court referred to above, 1 have got no hesitation in holding that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded his Jurisdiction in substituting his own findings of fact in place of the concurrent findings recorded by the two authorities below. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26. 10. 1998 is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be quashed. ( 15 ) THIS petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26. 10. 1998 is quashed. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 26. 10. 1998 is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be quashed. ( 15 ) THIS petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 26. 10. 1998 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. It is, however, provided that if the Deputy Director of consolidation again comes to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Settlement officer. Consolidation and Consolidation Officer were in any manner erroneous, perverse or arbitrary, it will be open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to set aside the said findings and to remand the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for decision afresh. The case will be decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him, after following the procedure prescribed under the law. ( 16 ) NO orders as to costs. .