S. K. SINGH, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition ). 2. Proceedings are under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. C. H. Act in which claim of parties about their respective title has been decided. To dispose of the writ petition, brief summary of the facts will suffice. 3. Petitioners who are four in number claims to be recorded over four sets of plots which can be noticed in sequence, i. e. petitioner No. 1 over plots Nos. 276, 277, 335, 336 petitioner No. 2 over plots Nos. 20/1, 6/2, petitioner No. 3 over plots Nos. 64, 256, 317/1 and petitioner No. 4 over plot No. 284. Respondents filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act claiming rights on the basis of possession. It was stated in the objection that before zamindari abolition, they were khudkasht holder of land and thereafter they continued in possession but Ram Narain got his name incorrectly recorded. Taking advantage thereof, he transferred the land by two registered sale deeds in favour of petitioners. The rights on the basis of adverse possession was also claimed in the alternative. The claim of respondent was contested by petitioners on the ground that Basudeo was hereditary tenant over plot Nos. 276, 277, 335 and 336 before date of vesting and became sirdar on the date of vesting and on his death, his son Ram Narain remained in possession and thereafter he deposited ten times of land revenue and after obtaining sanad, by means of registered sale deed dated 19-4-1968, the land was transferred. The mutation of petitioner No. 1 was also allowed upon which, respondents filed suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act against the petitioner No. 1 and Rajendra son of Ram Narain referred above, but the suit was dismissed by trial Court and on its appeal, the suit stood abated under the provisions of U. P. C. H. Act. In respect to plot Nos. 20/1 and 6/2, it was submitted that petitioner No. 2 was hereditary tenant before date of vesting upon which he became sirdar after date of vesting and has been coming down in continuous possession. Similarly, in respect to plot Nos. 256, 64 and 317/1, claim was that petitioner No. 3 was hereditary tenant. In respect to plot Nos. 20/1 and 6/2, it was submitted that petitioner No. 2 was hereditary tenant before date of vesting upon which he became sirdar after date of vesting and has been coming down in continuous possession. Similarly, in respect to plot Nos. 256, 64 and 317/1, claim was that petitioner No. 3 was hereditary tenant. In respect to plot No. 284, claim was that grand father of petitioner No. 4 namely Soman was hereditary tenant and after date of vesting and after his death, petitioner No. 4 continued in possession. It was further pleaded that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are illiterate and grandfather of petitioner No. 4 was also illiterate and therefore, respondents by filing a suit in respect to plot Nos. 64, 256, 317/1 and 201 and 6/2 against petitioner Nos. 3 and 2 respectively, got an ex parte decree and thereafter on the basis of compromise got the matter decided although petitioners had no knowledge and they never engaged any Counsel nor did they enter into compromise. Parties in support of respective cases adduced oral and documentary evidence. Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of respondents and thereafter they filed appeal, which was also dismissed by Appellate Court but on filing revision, respondents succeeded and thus the judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 is under challenge. 4. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that reasoning and findings given by two Courts below have not been met and reversed by the Revisional Court and therefore, judgment is liable to been quashed on this ground alone. Submission is that dakhalnama relied upon in respect to plot No. 284 obtained in Suit No. 1889 of 1949 is against Bhaggu and Soman is not party in that suit. In respect to plots Nos. 64, 256, 317/1, 20/1 and 6/2 is concerned, it is said that the alleged suit filed by respondents was-decreed on the basis of compromise although petitioners have not entered into compromise and they never engaged any Counsel. Neither any notice was issued, nor there is any service on them. Sirajuddin Khan-Vakil who is said to have been examined to prove the compromises decree, clearly stated that he cannot recognize the petitioner No. 2. Neither any notice was issued, nor there is any service on them. Sirajuddin Khan-Vakil who is said to have been examined to prove the compromises decree, clearly stated that he cannot recognize the petitioner No. 2. Submission is that from the side of respondents, only statement of respondent No. 1 was given whereas, from the side of petitioners, Parag, Mangal and Sukhraj besides Record Keeper have been examined, but the Revisional Court without taking note of this crucial evidence has allowed the revision. It is further submitted that entry in favour of respondents of few years has been found to be not in accordance with law as no P. A.-10 etc. was issued but the Revisional Court by ignoring this aspect and by recording perverse finding, has illegally repelled the petitioners submission. Submission is that approach of Revisional Court and burden to prove certain aspects as noticed by Revisional Court in its judgment, is perverse and therefore, the matter needs fresh hearing on merits. 5. In response to the aforesaid, learned Counsel for respondents submits that decree in respect to two sets of plots of the years 1953 is said to be ex parte at first instance but thereafter as restoration was filed and again the matter was decided on the basis of compromise, the contention of petitioners that they were not aware about the decree and no notice/summon was issued or served cannot be accepted. Submission is that approach of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation about non implementation of decree and no steps to take possession is totally misconceived as in the decree itself, there is a mention that possession has been appropriately given and therefore, there was no occasion of taking any dakhal. Argument is that merely for the reason that entries were not corrected in the light of decree and thereafter in the light of mutation order, the effect of decree and benefits which are to accrue to the respondents cannot be taken away. In respect to plot No. 276 etc. submission is that in 1356 Fasli, the land was shown to be Seer of Mangal, thereafter name of Ram Narain came, thus there is no explanation that how name of Mangal was omitted, and therefore rights of petitioners on the basis of transfer can be accepted. In respect to plot No. 276 etc. submission is that in 1356 Fasli, the land was shown to be Seer of Mangal, thereafter name of Ram Narain came, thus there is no explanation that how name of Mangal was omitted, and therefore rights of petitioners on the basis of transfer can be accepted. In respect to plot No. 285, submission is that petitioner No. 4 has not connected himself with Soman in any manner who was initially recorded and as Soman was found to be farar, respondents have been rightly given rights on the basis of possession. Submission is that entries of possession in favour of respondents have been rightly believed and the decree passed in favour of respondents has been rightly relied upon to bar the claim of petitioners. Submission is that the finding so recorded by the Revisional Court being finding of fact, there being no perversity in it, this Court is not to interfere. 6. In view of aforesaid submission, this Court has examined the matter. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were recorded in the basic year over all four sets of plots as noticed in the judgment. The Revisional Court has recorded a clear finding that in the record of Civil Court and Revenue Court in relation to decree on which reliance has been placed by respondents, there is neither any summan nor any vakalatnama of petitioners but at the same time, as there is a decree which stands, that will bar the claim of petitioners in respect to two sets of plots. Statement of Sirajuddin, Advocate on which reliance has been placed by respondents, on its perusal states that he is not able to recognize the petitioners and in fact, there is no vakalatnama of Sirajuddin, Advocate available in the record. Admittedly, decree claimed is of the year 1953 and thereafter. Consolidation appears to have intervened, in the year 1970 and thus for about 15-16 years, respondents never tried to get their names corrected. From the side of petitioners, oral evidence has been given to prove the decree to be fraudulent and all the petitioners not being party there. Admittedly, decree claimed is of the year 1953 and thereafter. Consolidation appears to have intervened, in the year 1970 and thus for about 15-16 years, respondents never tried to get their names corrected. From the side of petitioners, oral evidence has been given to prove the decree to be fraudulent and all the petitioners not being party there. In spite of the fact, that neither any summon nor any vakalatnama in the name of petitioners is available in record, nor Sirajuddin, Advocate who is said to have identified the petitioner has been able to identify the petitioners merely on account of existence of a decree which was filed, matter has been concluded against the petitioners. Two Courts have not accepted the claim of respondents on the basis of decree for the simple reason that they have found the entire exercise to be fraudulent for various reasons so given and they maintained basic year entry in the name of petitioners by taking the view that as fraud vitiates even most solemn proceeding, the long standing entry in the name of petitioners cannot be directed to be expunged on just a plea having been taken about existence of a decree of which, very existence was doubted. In respect to plot No. 284, objection of respondents is that petitioner No. 4 has not been able to connect himself from Soman who was recorded but from perusal of record, it appears that it has been specifically pleaded that Soman happens to be grandfather of petitioner No. 4 and pedigree has also been given in the statement of Sukhraj petitioner No. 4, copy of which has been annexed along with rejoinder-affidavit. In respect to last set of plots i. e,. plot No. 276 etc. , although, Mangal Singh is said to have been recorded in 1356 Fasli, but as his name was omitted and name of Ram Narain came to be recorded, and he deposited ten time of land revenue for getting Bhumidhari sanad and thereafter, he transferred the land but at no point of time, respondents raised any objection either in the proceedings for obtaining sanad or in the proceeding of mutation and thereafter suit filed by them under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was also dismissed, which is to be taken note of although in appeal, suit was abated. It appears that from the side of petitioners, statements of Parag, Mangal Singh and Sukhraj have been given, copy of which has been annexed along with rejoinder- affidavit from which, petitioners have tried to prove their rights and possession but, on a perusal of the judgment of Revisional Court makes it clear that no consideration has been made of this evidence. If Soman is reported to be farar and pedigree given from the side of petitioners as stated in the statement of Sukhraj is accepted to be correct, then for dislodging petitioner No. 2 from plot No. 284 fresh reasons will have to be given. The respondents will also have to explain that when the name of Ram Narain came in the record and he obtained Bhumidhari Sanad on deposit of ten times revenue and on execution of sale deeds, when on that basis petitioners got their name entered why no objection was raised. In respect to entries of possession, finding has been given by two Courts about non-issuance of P. A. 10 and entry in favour of respondents to be not in accordance with law also as to confer rights on them will also have to be seriously analysed. The Record Keeper who has been examined has proved that neither any summon was issued nor anything exists in record and there is no vakalatnama in the name of petitioner and therefore, in these circumstances, filing of restoration and the alleged compromise for restoring ex parte decree will also have to be noticed with caution. Petitioners have further placed on record, voluminous documents along with rejoinder-affidavit by which they have tired to prove their possession but the Deputy Director of Consolidation discussing them in a cursory manner, accepted the claim of respondents. On these facts, it is clear that the Revisional Court has not properly analysed the witnesses, examined from the side of petitioners. Various documents so filed and reasoning and findings so given by two Courts below has been reversed in a hurried manner without proper consideration as law needs. On these facts, it is clear that the Revisional Court has not properly analysed the witnesses, examined from the side of petitioners. Various documents so filed and reasoning and findings so given by two Courts below has been reversed in a hurried manner without proper consideration as law needs. In the light of aforesaid consideration, this Court is of the view that if the matter is sent back to the concerned Revisional Court to examine the claim of parties by taking note of all the oral and documentary evidence which has been filed by the parties, keeping in mind the reasoning and findings so given by two Courts below, then they may get justice. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14-3-1974 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Revisional Court to take appropriate decision afresh in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned with all expedition at his command without allowing any unwarranted adjournment to either of them Petition allowed. .