R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner (Shabbir Ahmad since deceased, Parvez Ahmad his son) prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27. 5. 1975 passed by the Deputy director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, allowing the revision filed by Siraj, father of respondent nos. 3 and 4, in the proceedings under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the dispute relates to Khata No. 3 of village Bhiti, Khata No. 12 of village Pardaha and Khata No. 4 of village Shahadatpur, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, district Azamgarh. (hereinafter referred to as "the land in dispute" ). In the basic year, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Abdul halim s/o Abdul Aziz (since deceased ). As Abdul Halim was dead and villages where the land in dispute are situated, were under the operation of the Act, the petitioner Shabbir Ahmad filed an application under Section 12 of the Act for mutation of his name and the names of Nisar and siraj, two other sons of late Abdul Halim and brothers of the petitioner, as they were only heirs and successors of the deceased. To the application filed by the petitioner Siraj, father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an objection claiming that Khata No. 3 of village Bhiti was joint of him and Nlsar while two other Khatas, i. e. , Khata No. 12 of the village Pardaha and Khata No. 4 of village Shahadatpur, referred to above, were owned exclusively by him on the basis of a Will dated 1. 2. 1969 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Abdul Halim in their favour. 2. 1969 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Abdul Halim in their favour. It may be noted that before the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, the contesting respondents applied for mutation of their names on the basis of the aforesaid Will under Section 33/39 of the u. P. Land Revenue Act ; but as they have failed to prove the genuineness of the said Will, the same was held to be a forged document and the names of all the three sons of Abdul Halim were directed to be recorded by the Revenue Court. Even the revision filed against the order passed by the Revenue Court was dismissed by the Commissioner on 15. 3. 1973. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues which were as follows : (1) Whether Siraj. Nisar and Shabbir are the heirs and successors of Abdul Halim deceased of the Khatas in dispute? (2) Whether on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Abdul Halim, the land in dispute devolved only upon Nisar and Siraj? ( 3 ) PARTIES in support of their cases produced evidence oral and documentary. After going through the evidence on record, the Consolidation Officer recorded findings on both the issues in favour of the petitioner and against the contesting respondents. It was held that the evidence produced by the contesting respondents was self-contradictory. The Will in question was not a genuine document but a forged document prepared after the death of Abdul Halim. The land in dispute consisted of sirdari and bhumidhari land. In respect of sirdari land no Will could be executed. Having recorded the said findings, the names of all the three sons were directed to be mutated by the Consolidation Officer in place of Abdul Halim in the revenue papers over the land in dispute by his judgment and order dated 8. 8. 1970. Challenging the validity of the said order, three appeals were filed by Siraj, which were allowed and the case was remanded to the consolidation Officer for decision afresh on 25. 8. 1971. The Consolidation Officer again heard the parties and after perusing the entire evidence which formed part of the record, held that the will in question was a forged document. The same was prepared after the death of Abdul Halim. 8. 1971. The Consolidation Officer again heard the parties and after perusing the entire evidence which formed part of the record, held that the will in question was a forged document. The same was prepared after the death of Abdul Halim. There could be executed no Will with respect to sirdari land. Having recorded the said findings, the Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Siraj and directed the names of three sons of abdul Halim to be recorded over the land in dispute vide order dated 8. 1. 1973. Challenging the validity of the order of the Consolidation Officer, Nisar Ahmad again filed appeal before the settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer. Consolidation after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation officer and dismissed the appeal by his judgment and order dated 4. 3. 1975. Aggrieved by the said order. Siraj filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy director of Consolidation, without reversing the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, consolidation In accordance with law, particularly, regarding execution of the Will In respect of sirdari land, allowed the revision by his judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1975. Hence, the present petition. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was admitted on 31. 7. 1975 and notices were directed to be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and some of the respondents have died whose heirs were substituted. The contesting respondents evaded service of the notice issued by this Court. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to serve the said respondents by substituted service. The notices issued by this Court were, under the orders of this Court, published in the newspapers and ultimately the service upon the contesting respondents was held sufficient. Inspite of service of notices upon the contesting respondents, none appeared on their behalf at the time of hearing. It may be noted that initially Mr. B. L. Yadav, Advocate, as he then was, put In his appearance and also filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents in reply whereof a rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by the petitioner controverting and denying the facts stated in the counter-affidavit ; but after he was elevated to the Bench of this Court, no body put in appearance inspite of service of notice to engage another counsel upon the respondents. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record in relying upon the inadmissible evidence, i. e. , the alleged Will dated 1. 2. 1969 inasmuch as neither the original Will was filed nor a case for admission of secondary evidence was either pleaded or proved. It was also urged that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation recorded clear and categorical findings to the effect that the land in dispute consisted of sirdari land also, in respect of which no Will could be executed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally in completely Ignoring this aspect of the matter and in allowing the revision. It was further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted illegally as the consolidation Officer and he without recording any finding regarding irregularity of proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, consolidation, set aside his order and allowed the revision relying upon the inadmissible evidence, oral and documentary. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, according to him, was illegal and was liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also carefully perused the record. ( 7 ) UNDER the provisions of the Evidence Act, there can be two types of evidence. i. e. , oral and documentary. All statements which the Court permits or requires it to be made before it by the witness in relation to matter of fact under enquiry, such statements are called oral evidence and all documents produced for inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence. Section 91/92 of the Evidence Act exclude the production of oral evidence where the , terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases In which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document Itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions contained in the said Act. In the present case, the Will in question was reduced to writing as claimed by the contesting respondents, the original of which was alleged to be filed in the mutation court. In the case before the Consolidation Officer, neither the original Will nor its certified copy was produced by the contesting respondents nor any application was made by them before the authorities below to summon the alleged Will filed in the" mutation proceedings although said proceedings were finally concluded in March, 1973. As stated above, the Will in question was found to be a forged document in the mutation proceedings by the Revenue Court. What was produced before the Consolidation Officer was a hand written copy of the alleged Will. Documentary evidence may be primary or secondary as provided under Section 61 of the evidence Act. Primary evidence as defined under Section 62 of the Evidence Act means original document itself produced for the Inspection of the Court. Secondary evidence means and includes certified copies given under the provisions of Section 63 of the Evidence Act. No case, as stated above, for production of secondary evidence was at all made out. The contesting respondents illegally attempted to prove the contents of the uncertified copy which was inadmissible in evidence by production or oral evidence. The Consolidation Officer and the settlement Officer, Consolidation disbelieved the witnesses produced by the contesting respondents and clearly held that the execution of the Will in question was not proved. The deputy Director of Consolidation although did not place reliance upon the statements of Ek Nath and Bhikhoo Ram who were stated to be the alleged scribes of the Will at the dictate of Abdul halim but illegally held that by other witnesses, execution of the Will was proved. He has thus, acted illegally in relying upon Inadmissible evidence and committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record In holding that the Will in question was proved. Further, legally no Will could be executed with respect to sirdari land. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement officer, Consolidation recorded specific findings on this question. The Deputy Director of consolidation did not reverse the said findings but upheld the validity of the Will wholly illegally. Further, legally no Will could be executed with respect to sirdari land. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement officer, Consolidation recorded specific findings on this question. The Deputy Director of consolidation did not reverse the said findings but upheld the validity of the Will wholly illegally. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner was right in his submission that the entire evidence, oral and documentary, produced in the case on behalf of the respondents was inadmissible. Neither any written document nor the statements of the so-called witnesses produced on behalf of the contesting respondents were admissible in evidence. Further, the Deputy Director of consolidation was Illegally swayed by the fact that some properties were inherited by his wife from her father. The said fact was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determination of inheritance of the property in dispute owned by late Abdul Halim. The Deputy Director of consolidation no where recorded any finding that the findings recorded by the Settlement officer, Consolidation were either perverse, Illegal or incorrect but reversed the said findings acting in excess of his jurisdiction. ( 9 ) IN Gaya Din (D) through L. Rs. and others v. Hanuman Prasad (D) through L. Rs. , and others, jt 2000 (Supp. 3) SC 199, in paragraphs 10 and 14, it was ruled by the Apex Court as under : "10. There can be no doubt that under amended Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, the revisional power of the Director of Consolidation is not confined to errors of jurisdiction as was the position under the unamended provision. The power of the revisional authority now extends to satisfying himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order. It is well-settled that conceptually the powers of a revisional authority, even if couched in wide language, cannot be equated with the powers of an appellate authority. " "14. Thus, it is clear that notwithstanding the fact that Section 48 has been couched in wide terms, it only permits interference where the findings of the subordinate authority are perverse in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. Thus, it is clear that notwithstanding the fact that Section 48 has been couched in wide terms, it only permits interference where the findings of the subordinate authority are perverse in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. " ( 10 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above noted case, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is wholly illegal inasmuch as findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have no where been held illegal or perverse by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. ( 11 ) BEFORE parting with the case, it may also be noted, as it has come on the record, that the claim of contesting respondents with respect to non-agricultural properties left behind by late Abdul halim based on the said Will dated 1. 2. 1969 has also been rejected by the Civil Court in O. S. No. 100 of 1975. decided on 20. 2. 1976, and in Civil Appeal No. 112 of 1976. decided on 23. 12. 1976, and all his sons and their heirs have been given equal shares in the said properties. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) THE writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 27. 5. 1975 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. .