Vikram Nath, J.: - The dispute relates to Khata Nos.177A and 148 of Village Nema, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, Tahsil Salempur, District Deoria. The petitioners were recorded in the basic year over Khata No.177A. Separate objections were filed by the respondent nos.4 to 8, claiming 1/2 share each in Khata No.177A. Over Khata No.148 Sheo Nath alone was recorded and as such the petitioners filed objections with regard to the three plots of the said Khata on the ground that they were ancestral coming down from the common ancestors of the petitioners and Sheo Nath and in a partition which had taken place in 1947 they were given these three plots exclusively. Other objections were also filed with regard to the said plots. The Consolidation Officer consolidated all the objections and by order dated 24.10.1972 allowed the objections of Ghinhu (respondent no.5) over Khata No.177A directing that the name of the petitioners be expunged and the name of Ghinhu be recorded. The other objections with regard to Khata No.177 A were rejected. Further with regard to the three plots of Khata No.148 the objections of the petitioners were rejected. Petitioners filed an appeal which was partly allowed to the extent that the petitioners were given co tenancy rights with 1/2 share in the three plots of Khata No.148 and with regard to Khata No.177A the order of the Consolidation Officer was maintained. The petitioners filed revision with regard to Khata No.177A as also claiming exclusive rights on the three plots of Khata No.148 whereas Sheo Nath filed revision claiming exclusive rights of the three plots of Khata No.148. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide judgment dated 16.8.1974 partly allowed the revision of the petitioners as also the revision of Sheo Nath. With regard to Plot Nos.2050 and 855 of Khata No.148 the name of Sheo Nath was directed to be expunged and the name of the petitioners was directed to be recorded exclusively. With regard to the other plots of Khata No.177A and Khata No.148 the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Further the revision of Sheo Nath was allowed to the extent that he may be exclusively recorded over Plot No.1613 of Khata No.148 and with regard to two other plots namely 2050 and 855 the claim of Sheo Nath was rejected. With regard to the other plots of Khata No.177A and Khata No.148 the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Further the revision of Sheo Nath was allowed to the extent that he may be exclusively recorded over Plot No.1613 of Khata No.148 and with regard to two other plots namely 2050 and 855 the claim of Sheo Nath was rejected. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present writ petition has been filed in which claim of the petitioners is that the orders passed by the consolidation courts be modified as per the claim made before the Consolidation Officer that all the plots of Khata No.177A be recorded in the name of the petitioners and that the three plots of Khata No.148 be exclusively recorded in the name of the petitioners. 2. I have heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite case having been taken up in the revised call, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, although the name of Sri A.K. Mishra, Advocate has been printed from the side of the respondents. 3. I have also perused the pleadings and other material on record. 4. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is two fold. Firstly that the decree of the revenue court dated 25.4.1967 in the declaratory suit under section 229 B of the U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 was binding on all the parties and the consolidation courts committed error in ignoring the same. The second argument advanced is that the Civil Court committed error in abating the suit under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which had been filed for cancellation of the decree of the Revenue Court. In support of his submissions Sri Tripathi has relied upon a judgdment of the Apex Court in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube versus Hari Narain Singh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2451 . No other argument has been pressed in support of his contention. 5. Having considered the submissions, I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his judgment has dealt in detail the circumstances in which the decree of the Civil Court had been obtained. The finding recorded, based upon consideration of material on record is that fraud had been committed in filing the admission on behalf of Ghinhu and in fact Ghinhu had never filed any admission nor had he given any concession. The finding recorded, based upon consideration of material on record is that fraud had been committed in filing the admission on behalf of Ghinhu and in fact Ghinhu had never filed any admission nor had he given any concession. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a finding that the decree of the Civil Court was void and liable to be ignored as it was an out come of fraud upon the Court. It had further recorded that apart from the decree of the Civil Court, no other evidence had been led by the petitioners to defend their claim with regard to the land covered by Khata No.177A. With regard to Khata No.148 the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in effect was in favour of the petitioners and they can possibly have no objection for the same. The finding recorded is that out of the three plots claimed by the petitioners, Plot No.1613/2 was recorded in the name of Sheo Nath on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties in the year 1973 in which it was given to Sheo Nath and he was accordingly recorded over the same. With regard to the other two Plots Nos.855 and 2050, the petitioners would be entitled as per the said compromise. The finding with regard to Khata No.148 is also based upon consideration of material on record. 6. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, are based upon consideration of material on record and are pure finding of fact. The petitioners having not assailed the order abating the civil suit, cannot challenge the same at this stage and even otherwise the said decree having been obtained by fraud upon the Court, it would be a void decree and therefore, could be ignored by the consolidation courts even if there was no decree of cancellation. 7. The decision in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube (supra) relied upon by Sri Tripathi is of no help. In fact it clarifies that a decree would be binding so long as it is not cancelled, provided it requires cancellation. It does not lay down that a decree which is void also requires cancellation. In the present case the decree being void was liable to be ignored. 8. I find no infirmity in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. It does not lay down that a decree which is void also requires cancellation. In the present case the decree being void was liable to be ignored. 8. I find no infirmity in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. 9. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 10. There shall however be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.