Rakesh Sharma, J.: - Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Khan who has put in appearance on behalf of the respon­dents 2 to 13. 2. Under challenge is an order passed by the D.D.C, Faizabad dated 28.2.81 by which the concurrent finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation regarding co-tenancy of the parties have been re­versed. The contesting parties were co-tenure holders and sirdars in Khata No. 109 having an area of 9 Bighas out of 18 Bighas in village Naseerpur, District Faizabad. The disputed Khata No. 109 was recorded in the basic year in the name of petitioners and the contesting respondents were shown in Class II category in jevenue en­tries. 3. On commencement of consolida­tion proceeding, one of the respondent Smt. Dhiraji, filed objection before the C.O. claiming her share in the several Khatas as co-tenant. The respondents Raghunath and others filed objections that the entry of pe­titioners name in Khata No. 109 and the basic year was fictitious and it should be expunged. The petitioners throughout claimed a right of co-tenancy and well de­fined share on the basis of land being an­cestral and according to them they belong to same family. 4. The Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation accepted a pedigree in which Jokhan, Ramdihal, Buddhu and Khusi were shown as four sons of Sadhai. The other heirs in the land of succession were shown in the said pedi­gree. The Khatauni entries of 1301F, 1340F, 1346F, 1356F, 1359F were placed before the Court. Family settlement of 3 February, 1944 and 3 February, 1970 khewat, Gosh-wara etc. were also placed before the said Court. Both the Courts i.e. C.O and S.O.C had relied upon the pedigree placed before them. These Courts have concurrently up­held the basic year entry in favour of the petitioners, with his possession and their shares were kept intact. Detailed findings were recorded by the S.O.C while dealing with the appeal. 5. The D.D.C at revisional stage has dealt with the matter taking various differ­ent angle. According to petitioner's Coun­sel, he has placed reliance on an entirely new pedigree for the purpose of adjudica­tion of the case, although he has recorded his own findings in reversing the concur­rent findings recorded by the two Courts below. According to D.D.C the pedigree accepted by the C.O and S.O.C were not correct. According to petitioner's Coun­sel, he has placed reliance on an entirely new pedigree for the purpose of adjudica­tion of the case, although he has recorded his own findings in reversing the concur­rent findings recorded by the two Courts below. According to D.D.C the pedigree accepted by the C.O and S.O.C were not correct. He has given more weightage to the submissions of the respondents. Ac­cording to petitioner he has totally misread the evidence that the pedigree was given by Smt. Dhiraji and Ramdihal was correct. In fact, this pedigree was given by Mst. Dhiraji alone and not by the petitioners i.e. Ramdihal and others. 6. The settlement entry of 1346 has been rejected by the D.D.C despite the fact that the petitioners were recorded co-tenure holders and having possession over the land for the last 50 years at the time of litigation. Various other grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the peti­tioner. 7. Sri A.R. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the petition, he has taken the Court to the findings re­corded by the D.D.C while recording his opinion and conclusions. According to him the oral and documentary evidence was relied upon by the D.D.C while adjudicat­ing the dispute. Revenue entries cannot be relied upon blindly. The entry of 1346F upon which much reliance has been placed by the petitioners was a fictitious entry, which was totally unfounded. Khusi was not brother of Jokhan and Ramdihal. As per scheme contained in Awadh Rent Act the name of Karta of the family was to be recorded. Khusi was not real brother of Jokhan. He has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in support of his submissions. According to him the wrong was undone by the D.D.C and the judg­ment and order impugned in the present petition is unassailable. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It is interesting to note that in the present case three different pedigrees have been placed by the contesting parties. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have relied on the pedigree which has been placed in para 7 of the writ petition. The D.D.C although relied on a pedigree which according to him was placed by Smt Dhiraji and petitioner Ramdi­hal, the petitioner's Counsel has categori­cally disputed this fact that Ramdihal had ever produced this pedigree. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation have relied on the pedigree which has been placed in para 7 of the writ petition. The D.D.C although relied on a pedigree which according to him was placed by Smt Dhiraji and petitioner Ramdi­hal, the petitioner's Counsel has categori­cally disputed this fact that Ramdihal had ever produced this pedigree. He has through out placed reliance on the pedigree which was placed before the two consolidation Courts below. The said pedigree was found to be correct and relied upon by the C.O and S.O.C in forming their opinions. Both the Consolidation Courts i.e. C.O and S.O.C have recorded concurrent finding of facts while relying on the settlement entry of 1346F. Petitioner's father Naik was a co-tenant since 1330F, the entry had remained unchallenged upto 1359F. This covers a pe­riod of 50 years. Certainly, this is a substan­tial period of time for at least two genera­tions of tilling the land. The two Consolida­tion Courts have relied upon a large number of documents, (revenue entries No. 10). The S.O.C, the Appellate Court, has gone in de­tail for recording the findings while support­ing his opinion. 10. The D.D.C ought to have dealt with each finding separately and it was incum­bent upon him to give detailed reason as to why he is reversing concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. The judgment is based on conjunctures and surmises importing his own views in revers­ing the concurrent finding of facts. Thus, there is substance in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the pedigree relied upon by the D.D.C was given by Smt Dhiraji alone and not by Ramdihal i.e. petitioner, how he could accept the said pedigree without there being any sound or strong reason. 11. Even the Berth Register of 1910 was taken into account, which displayed that the petitioner's grand father Khusi be­longed to family of Jokhan. He was admit­tedly ancestral of contesting respondents also and the land was recorded in his name as far back as in 1300F. Moreover the ma­terial fact regarding continuous and un­challenged revenue entry right from 1346F cannot be ignored. The petitioner had re­mained in possession over the land in dispute for the last 50 years. 12. Even both the Courts (C.O. and S.O.C.) have given due weightage to fam­ily settlements to hold that the Naik. Moreover the ma­terial fact regarding continuous and un­challenged revenue entry right from 1346F cannot be ignored. The petitioner had re­mained in possession over the land in dispute for the last 50 years. 12. Even both the Courts (C.O. and S.O.C.) have given due weightage to fam­ily settlements to hold that the Naik. Peti­tioner's father belong to same family to which respondents belonged. It was not one's case that the settlements (Ekrarnama) were fabricated. 13. Thus, in view of above discussion it can be safely said that the D.D.C has ig­nored the evidence on record, revenue en­tries and other relevant entries which are very relevant material for adjudicating the controversy raised by the parties. The judgment and order passed by the D.D.C appears to be unjust and improper and is accordingly quashed. The order passed by the C.O and S.O.C are upheld. 14. In view of the observations made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.2.1981, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. Necessary consequences shall follow. Petition Allowed.