Vikram Nath, J.: - The suit relates to plot No. 1077 area 0.670 hectare situate at village Jagmalpur, Pargana and Tehsil Sagri, District Azamgarh (hereinafter re­ferred to as the plot in dispute). In the basic year records the petitioners were recorded. Objection was filed by Mohd. Iqbal/respondent No. 4 claiming that the name of the petitioners were wrongly entered into the revenue records and in fact he was the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute as such the name of the petitioners be ex­punged and his name be incorporated. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28.7.1971 allowed the objections and di­rected for expunging the name of the peti­tioners and in their place recording the name of respondent No. 4. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Offi­cer Consolidation which was allowed vide judgement dated 30th August, 1971 and the objections filed by Mohd. Iqbal were dismissed. The revision filed by Mohd. Iqbal has been allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 21.10.1972 and after upsetting the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consoli­dation the order of the Consolidation Offi­cer has been maintained. It is against the said judgment that the present writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard Sri R.U. Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. One Mohd. Zaheer (father of re­spondent Nos. 7 to 9) was the Zamindar of plot in dispute. In 1953 he filed a suit for injunction/possession against Rajdeo/respondent No. 5 treating him to be sub­tenant. The said suit was decided in terms of compromise between the parties, accord­ing to which Rajdeo was to continue in pos­session over the plot in dispute. Thereafter it appears that Mohd. Iqbal filed suit for declaration under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ZA Act) impleading Rajdeo and others (respondent Nos. 5 to 16) claiming sirdari rights. The said suit was decided in terms of compromise in which Rajdeo was not a party. Subsequently upon application being filed by Rajdeo the compromise decree was recalled and the suit was dismissed. It was held that the Rajdeo was the sirdar. Mohd. Iqbal had filed an appeal but it appears the same was abated during consolidation. In 1964 Rajdeo obtained Bhumidhari sanad with regard to the plot in dispute after de­positing 10 times land revenue. Subsequently upon application being filed by Rajdeo the compromise decree was recalled and the suit was dismissed. It was held that the Rajdeo was the sirdar. Mohd. Iqbal had filed an appeal but it appears the same was abated during consolidation. In 1964 Rajdeo obtained Bhumidhari sanad with regard to the plot in dispute after de­positing 10 times land revenue. Thereafter on 5th February, 1965, Rajdeo executed a registered sale deed in favour of the peti­tioners of the plot in dispute. Pursuant thereto the name of the petitioners were mutated and the entries continued as such. In 1968 the village was notified under sec­tion 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) where after Mohd. Iqbal/respondent No. 4 filed objections which were contested by the petitioners. It is these proceedings which give rise to the filing of the present writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petition­ers submitted that the Mohd. Iqbal was never recorded in the revenue records ei­ther as the Bhumidhar of the land or as Sir­dar or Adhivasi or in any status whatso­ever. Further he was never shown to be in possession in the revenue records. The only basis of his claim was a stray statement made by the Zamindar in some proceed­ings that Mohd. Iqbal was in possession. He has further submitted that Mohd. Iqbal had utterly failed to establish his right, title and interest over the plot in dispute. 5. Sri Ansari further submitted that the name of Rajdeo had throughout been recorded from 1362 Fasli with a gap of a year or two with the name of Mohd. Azam and Mohd. Zaheer being recorded as ten­ant-in-chief. Rajdeo was also issued Bhu­midhari sanad and on the basis of the same he had been recorded as Bhumidhar and thereafter he had executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even in the suit for injunction possession filed by Zamindar a compromise was ar­rived at in which Rajdeo was to continue in possession over the plot in dispute. It is further submitted that even in the suit for declaration filed by Mohd. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even in the suit for injunction possession filed by Zamindar a compromise was ar­rived at in which Rajdeo was to continue in possession over the plot in dispute. It is further submitted that even in the suit for declaration filed by Mohd. Iqbal, Trial Court had ultimately held Rajdeo to be sir­dar thus, petitioners being bona fide pur­chaser from Rajdeo would be deemed to be Bhumidhars and their names were rightly recorded in the revenue records in the basic year. According to him the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Con­solidation erred in allowing the claim of Mohd. Iqbal. They failed to take into con­sideration vital documentary evidence on record which clearly established that Ra­jdeo was the Bhumidhar. According to him the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation further commit­ted error of law by allowing the claim of Mohd. Iqbal by trying to find out certain shortcomings in the evidence led by Ra­jdeo. According to him as objections had been filed by Mohd. Iqbal thus, he had stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff and as such it was upon him to establish his claim instead of trying to find out the la­cuna in the defence of the petitioner Rajdeo. 6. On the other hand Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the re­spondents has tried to justify, the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and has submitted that there is no illegality in the same. Rajdeo having failed to establish his claim, the name of Mohd. Iqbal had rightly been directed 'to be recorded in the revenue records. 7. Having considered the submis­sions advanced and having perused the material on record, I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not meet out or up set the finding recorded by the Set­tlement Officer Consolidation based upon the consideration of material, oral and documentary evidence on record. The Set­tlement Officer Consolidation had recorded specific finding to the effect that Mohd. Iqbal was never recorded to be in posses­sion at any stage either before or after the date of vesting. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has in fact allowed the claim of Mohd. Iqbal not on his own strength or the evidence led by Mohd. Iqbal but on certain technical shortcomings being no­ticed in the defence of the petitioners. Iqbal was never recorded to be in posses­sion at any stage either before or after the date of vesting. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has in fact allowed the claim of Mohd. Iqbal not on his own strength or the evidence led by Mohd. Iqbal but on certain technical shortcomings being no­ticed in the defence of the petitioners. The observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Rajdeo was never Shikmi or Adhivasi in the plot in dispute as such entry in his favour in 1362 Fasli was not in accordance with law and at the same time he failed to take into consideration that Mohd. Iqbal in fact was never recorded at any stage in the revenue records and therefore he, could not have a better case than Rajdeo and he being the plaintiff had to establish his own case. The only basis for allowing the claim of Mohd. Iqbal was oral statement of the erstwhile Zamindar and that too in proceedings for declaration which were initiated in 1968 i.e. much after the vesting. In case Mohd. Iqbal had any interest he ought to have claimed immedi­ately upon vesting and he having failed to do so within the limitation prescribed un­der the Act, even if he had any rights they stood extinguished. 8. In the opinion of the Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed gross error in allowing the revision. For the reasons given above the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Accordingly the writ petition suc­ceeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consoli­dation is hereby quashed and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is main­tained. The records be corrected accord­ingly. 10. There shall however be no orders as to costs. Petition Allowed.