KRISHNA MURARI, J. Heard Sri Ramanuj Pandey holding brief of Sri W. H. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Kumar Aneesh holding brief of Sri B. D. Mandhyan appearing for contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 7. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order the dated 9-9-1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision arising out of proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act ). The dispute is with regard to share of the parties. The undisputed pedigree of the parties is as under: "maidayal Jhandu Bechu Budhu Tulli Harjas (adopted by Bechu) Mathura Sukhan (Petitioner) Kripa Tirkha Mangta Narpat Baljeet Mangtu Bidhi Naubat (respo (died (widow ndent) issueless) Smt. Phoolwati) 3. During Chakbandi partal, the share of petitioner was recorded a 1/3rd in the khata in dispute. He filed objection to the effect that his father Harjas was adopted by Bechu and such he was entitled to 1/2 share. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 contested the claim of the petitioner denying the adoption and alleging that Bechu has died issueless as such the share of petitioner was only 1/3rd. Subsequently, by way of amendment, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 pleaded a family settlement dated 11-8-1961 wherein the petitioner admitted his share to be 1/3rd. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 9-12-1977 discarded the family settlement as forged and fabricated and held the share of the petitioner to be 1/2. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also confirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned judgment dated 9-9-1980 allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition. 5. Though the contesting respondents denied the fact of adoption of Hajras by Bechu but they failed to disprove the same. The petitioner filed Khatauni of 1325 Fasli which contained an entry of the name of Hajras as adopted son of Bechu. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 failed to produce any document in support of their case. Relying upon the entry in Khatauni of 1325 fasli the Consolidation Officer held that Harjas was adopted by Bechu, the same finding has been confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 failed to produce any document in support of their case. Relying upon the entry in Khatauni of 1325 fasli the Consolidation Officer held that Harjas was adopted by Bechu, the same finding has been confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus all the three Courts have held that Harjas was adopted son of Bechu. Thus normally Harjas and after him his son Sukhan the petitioner would have been entitled to 1/2 share in the property in dispute. However, the contesting respondents relied upon a family settlement dated 11-8-1961 in which the petitioner admitted his share to be 1/3rd. 6. The alleged family settlement contained of the signature of the petitioner which was denied by him. The case of the petitioner was that he is an illiterate person and cannot make signature and affixes thumb-impression and his alleged signature on the family settlement is forged. The Consolidation Officer allowed a number of opportunity to the respondents to produce evidence to establish that the petitioner can make signature. However, they failed to discharge the said burden. The Consolidation Officer found that all the documents filed in the proceedings before him by the petitioner bears his thumb-impression. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, he held the document of family settlement to be forged and fabricated. 7. In appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation the contesting respondents placed reliance on an adjournment application moved by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer which allegedly had his signature. On the basis of the said document they tried to establish that the petitioner can make signature. However, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation refused to place any reliance on the same ground that the said document was not brought to the notice of the Consolidation Officer by the respondents when they were given opportunity to adduce evidence to establish that petitioner can make signature. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation further found that the said application does not bear any endorsement by the Consolidation Officer. He came to the finding that the said document was not there in the record of the Consolidation Officer and has been manufactured and brought on record subsequently and thus no reliance can be placed on the same. 8. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation further found that the said application does not bear any endorsement by the Consolidation Officer. He came to the finding that the said document was not there in the record of the Consolidation Officer and has been manufactured and brought on record subsequently and thus no reliance can be placed on the same. 8. The Deputy Director of Consolidation though confirmed the finding that Harjas was adopted son of Bechu, but placing reliance on the adjournment application which has the signature of the petitioner accepted the family settlement to be a genuine document and held the share of the petitioner to be 1/3rd on the basis of the same. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation failed to consider the specific finding recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that adjournment application was not on record before the Consolidation Officer and has been subsequently introduced in the record nor the said finding of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also failed to consider that in spite of a number of opportunities given to them by the Consolidation Officer the respondents did not point out the said document before the Consolidation Officer which could have established that petitioner can make signature. This was as a very strong circumstance which went to show that the said adjournment application was not on record before the Consolidation Officer and was introduced in the record subsequently, as held by Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also placed reliance on the fact that in another village Badsu the petitioner was given 1/3rd share in the land situate therein by Assistant Consolidation Officer. There is nothing on record to indicate that the order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer with regard to land situate in the said village was passed on the basis of family settlement. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has further failed to consider the admission made by respondent No. 2 Mathura in his cross-examination before the Consolidation Officer that the land situate in village Badsu was recorded in the name of Sukhan and he gave share in the said land to everyone. No reference of family settlement was made by him in his statement. No reference of family settlement was made by him in his statement. Merely because the petitioner willingly agreed to have 1/3rd share in the land in village Badsu will not disentitled him to claim his lawful share in the present proceedings. In the absence of any evidence to establish that dispute with regard to land in village Badsu was decided on the basis of family settlement, the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in this regard is without any evidence and based on surmises and conjecture. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9-9-1980 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and that of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation are affirmed. 12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 13. However, there shall be no order as costs. Petition allowed. .