S. K. SINGH, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short DDC), Azamgarh dated 24-10-1980 passed in Revision No. 66 under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. By the aforesaid judg ment, the DDC although has dismissed the revision as was filed by the Respondent No. 4 but at the same time, the land in dispute was declared to be Gaon Sabha property. 2. Heard Aparna Burman, learned Advocate who appeared on behalf. of the petitioners. No one has appeared on be half of the opposite parties. 3. The dispute in this writ petition relates to land as comprised in Khata No. 309 of village Rammopur, Pargana, Nauhara Phoolpur District Azamgarh. Over this land in the basic year record, the names of the petitioners was recorded as Sirdar. An objection was filed by the Respondent No. 4, claiming her rights on the ground that the land originally belonged to one Bideshi, who was succeeded by his wife Smt. Pancho and after Smt. Pancho, the Respondent No. 4 claimed herself to be the owner/successor being the daughter of Smt. Pancho and Bideshi. It was further claimed by Respondent No. 4 that she had been in possession over the land and therefore, it was prayed that the name of the petitioners be expunged. 4. The claim of Respondent No. 4 was contested by the petitioners on the ground that they have been recorded in Class-4 by the order of Naib-Tehsildar and the name of Smt. Pancho itself was ordered to be deleted by the order of Naib-Tehsildar. It was further claimed by the petitioners that a Suit was filed by Gaon Sabha under Sec tion 209 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which was registered as Original Suit No. 12 which was- dismissed on 11-5-1957 and, there fore, it was claimed that the petitioners being in possession throughout and no steps having been taken by the respondent No. 4 or by the Respondent No. 5, their rights cannot be negatived. 5. 5. The Consolidation Officer, by its order dated 27-12-1975 dismissed the ob jection of Respondent No. 4 against which the appeal filed by her was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolida tion but the matter having been taken up by the petitioners before the Revisional Court, the matter was remanded by the DDC by its judgment and order dated 6-11-1978 to the S. O. C. with certain direc tions to decide: (i) Whether Smt. Murati (Respondent No. 4) was unmarried or not when Smt. Pancho died (ii) when Smt. Pancho died. After the aforesaid remand the S. O. C. after hearing both the parties on 3-10-1979 dismissed the appeal of Respondent No. 4 after returning the following findings; (i) It is not proved that Smt. Murati is the daughter of Bideshi (ii) Smt. Pancho died before enforcement Act No. 20 of 1954 (iii) Smt. Murati was married prior to the enforce ment of Amendment Act, 1954. 6. It is against this order of S. O. C, a revision was filed by the Respondent No. 4 before the DDC which came up to be decided by the judgment, impugned in this writ petition, by which, although the revision of Respondent No. 4 was dis missed but at the same time, the right of the petitioners also stood negatived. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the DDC has made out a new case for negativ ing the petitioners right as according to the learned counsel after finding no worth in the claim/revision of Respondent No. 4, the revision was to be simply dismissed and further exercise qua petitioners right was totally uncalled for. It has been next argued that taking any view of the matter, there was no cogent material to negative the petitioners claim nor the petitioners were ever apprised and called upon to strengthen their case afresh in the light of the doubts which was being considered by the Respondent No. 1 in respect to the petitioners right. Lastly, it has been sub mitted that the Respondent No. 1 has wrongly discarded the worth of the judg ment dated 11-3-1957 by which the suit of the Respondent No. 5 under Section 209 pf UPZA and LR Act was dismissed and on the basis of some decision which is said to be given by the SDM on 31-5-1955, the petitioners claim has been negatived. Ac cording to learned counsel for the petitioners, the DDC has exceeded in its jurisdiction by giving findings in respect to these two aspects le. about the decision under Section 209 of UPZA and LR Act dated 11-5-1957 and in respect to the judg ment dated 31-5-1955 which was said to have been filed by the Land Management Committee, as these findings are perverse and they are based on no evidence. 8. Arguments of learned counsel ap pearing on behalf of the petitioners been considered and records have been perused. 9. The facts of the present case as has emerged in view of the pleadings and the judgment of the SOC and even of the DDC gives a final shape in respect to the right/claim of Respondent No. 4 after return of the findings against her that Smt. Pancho died before the enforcement of Act No. 20 of 1954 and Sri Murati was already married before the aforesaid Act and further that Smt. Murati was not daughter of Bideshi. In view of these findings, the dis missal of the revision by the DDC can be said to be justified as all the questions related to the facts in respect to which finding was already returned by the SOC as well. 10. It appears that the DDC has sum moned the records in respect to case No. 12 of 1956 under Section 209 of UPZA and LR Act (Gaon Sabha v. Madhai) in respect to which a report was sent that the file has been weeded out on 1-3-1996 but at the same time the DDC appears to have found the copy of the decree in -which at first place, it is mentioned that the case is being consigned but thereafter, by a different ink that note was expunged and it was men tioned that the suit has been dismissed. In this respect, the DDC himself appears to be in doubt as he has observed that after weed ing of the file, it cannot be said that what is the reality thereafter. After recording the aforesaid finding, the DDC has referred the judgment of the SDM dated 31-5-1955 by which the land in disp ute is said to have been recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. After recording the aforesaid finding, the DDC has referred the judgment of the SDM dated 31-5-1955 by which the land in disp ute is said to have been recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. After giving this finding, the DDC opined that on account of possession, right of the petitioners cannot be approved and it is thus the land in dispute was directed to be recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. 11. After analysing all these aspects and the reasonings as has come in the judgment of the DDC, it appears that the DDC in returning both the aforesaid find ings, has not taken proper care about suf ficiency of evidence and circumstances warranting justification for those findings. The judgment of Respondent No. 1 itself shows that the petitioners could not have any opportunity to meet out the suspicion as has crept in the mind of Respondent No. 1 in respect to the genuineness of the decision of case No. 12 of 1956 under Section 209 of UPZA and LR Act which was decided in petitioners favour and secondly to meet out the decision of the SDM dated 31 -5 -1955 which is said to have been decided in favour of the Land Management Commit tee. The conclusion of Respondent No. 1 in respect to both the aforesaid aspects appears to be not based on cogent evidence and that too after an opportunity to the petitioners as this aspect was for the first time ex amined by Respondent No. 1. 12. In any opinion, the DDC after recording the findings about the dismissal of the revision of Respondent No. 4 on the facts as has come on record it became suspicious about the petitioners right, al though there was no objection or claim on behalf of Respondent No. 5 against the petitioners basic year entry, it was obligatory for Respondent No. 1 to have called upon the petitioners to substantiate the basis of their entry, in view of the doubts as has arisen in the mind of Respondent No. 1, in the light of which the findings have been given against the petitioners and it is only thereafter, on a proper analysis of the material, decision should have been given in respect to the rights of the petitioners. 13. 13. As the revision of Respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the DDC against which, it appears that she has not preferred any writ petition before this Court, the find ing as recorded in respect to the rights of Respondent No. 1 has to stand. But so far the rights of the petitioners as has been nega tived by the judgment of Respondent No. 1 that requires re-scrutiny in the light of the observations as made in this judgment. 14. In view of the foregoing discus sions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the DDC, Azamgarh dated 24-10-1980 is hereby quashed in so far it has negatived the petitioners right and has directed entry to be made in favour of Gaon Sabha Respon dent No. 5. The dismissal of revision by the DDC stands maintained. The DDC is directed to decide the claim/right of the petitioner after affording opportunity to petitioners in the light of the observations as made in this judgment. 15. The panics will bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .