R. R. YADAV, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. M. Zaidi, at length. ( 2 ) PERUSED the averments made in the writ petition together with the annexures filed in support of the writ petition. ( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the records of the whole village had been manipulated and in such a situation, the petitioners would be satisfied if the inquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Consolidation is implemented in letter and spirit. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reasons given herein below. ( 5 ) IT is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the correction of the records during consolidation operation is based on judicial pronouncements of Consolidation authorities. No corrections in the revenue records during consolidation operation can be incorporated without judicial orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities as envisaged under u. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Entries incorporated on the basis of judicial orders are made subject to appeal and revision under the said Act. ( 6 ) IT is well to remember that all the Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their powers in deciding objections, appeals or revisions, perform their duties as judicial officers and they are protected under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. Under the aforesaid Act, the immunity granted to Consolidation Authorities, while exercising their judicial power is exceedingly wide so that they may act fearlessly, impartially and with a sense of security. The judicial Officers Protection Act is extendable even in those cases where Consolidation authorities have acted without jurisdiction in passing judicial orders, on the basis of which revenue records are corrected. Vague allegations relating to manipulation in revenue records during consolidation operation without making specific averments in the writ petition by the petitioners do not make them entitle to seek relief prayed for under extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made in the present writ petition are vague and as such, it deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The allegations made in the present writ petition are vague and as such, it deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. ( 7 ) IT is observed that if there is any manipulation in the revenue records during consolidation operation as alleged in the writ petition, the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. It is to be imbibed that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into under writ jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IT is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Zaidi that the inquiry report submitted by the Joint Director of Consolidation is to be implemented by issuing a writ of mandamus. It is held that writ of mandamus cannot be issued as a matter of course unless conditions precedent are satisfied for issuing such a prerogative writ. In the present case, conditions precedent for issuing a writ of mandamus is neither averred in the writ petition nor demonstrated before the court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, hence I decline to issue a writ of mandamus especially when the averments made in the writ petition do not inspire my confidence. Suffice is to say in this regard that there is presumption about the honesty and Integrity of an officer and I am of the view that if any Inquiry is conducted as alleged in the writ petition by Joint Director of consolidation, it is expected from the appropriate authority to take disciplinary action against those who are found guilty in the Inquiry report. ( 9 ) WITH the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine. .