Hon’ble Prakash Krishna,J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated January 12, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur in revision nos. 515 and 606 (annexure 19) to the writ petition. 2. The case has a chequered history and this is second round of litigation in the High Court. 3. The dispute relates to Khata No.29 which comprises Gata nos.31/1, 93, 94 and 282 situate in Village Kamasin, Post Tappa Kon, Pargana Kantit, Tehsil Sadar, Distt.Mirzapur. 4. In the basic year, the aforesaid Khata was jointly recorded in the names of Gulabo wife of Krishna Prasad, Deo Prasad S/o Girja Saran, Kamla S/o Bansdeo, Daya S/o Bansdeo, Ram Charittar S/o Bansdeo, Shyama Son of Bansdeo, Jayee son of Bansdeo and Munna Son of Vidya. It is admitted to the parties that the said khatha originally was an ancestral holding of the parties wherein Smt.Gulabo widow of Krishna Prasad had 2/3rd share. The present petitioner has purchased the share of Smt.Gulabo by means of two sale deeds dated 7.11.2000 and 14.11.2001 during the pendency of the litigation before the authorities below. The aforesaid persons had joint holdings at two Villages namely Kamasin and Gargeri. The case of the contesting respondents is that there was a family settlement/family partition on 10.5.1959 and it was agreed upon that Smt.Gulabo and Deo Prasad son of Girja will have entire holding at Village Gargeri and the other family persons will have no right title and interest therein. Similarly, the contesting respondents will have entire holding in Village Kamasin to the exclusion of Smt.Gulabo and Deo Prasad. 5. On the commencement of the consolidation operation in the Village, Kamasin, an objection for deleting the name of Gulabo was preferred which was registered as Case No. 1496 and 1497. 6. According to the contesting respondents herein, the said case was compromised and it was agreed upon that the name of Smt. Gulabo be deleted from the Khata in dispute. The compromise was accepted by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 25.7.1990. The said order was carried in appeal by Smt.Gulabo with the allegations that the compromise is fraudulent and she never agreed to the said compromise. The compromise was accepted by the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 25.7.1990. The said order was carried in appeal by Smt.Gulabo with the allegations that the compromise is fraudulent and she never agreed to the said compromise. The appeal was allowed on 15.2.1997 and the said order was carried in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer who allowed the revision and restored the matter back for fresh trial to the Consolidation Officer. After remand, Smt.Gulabo filed the objections in the form of written statement and it was registered as Case No. 145/551. She denied the family settlement, set up by the contesting respondents herein. She came out with the case that the said family settlement is forged and fabricated document. 7. It appears that a photo copy of the family settlement was filed by the contesting respondents herein which led Gulabo Devi to file additional objections. In her additional objections, it was pleaded that the family settlement dated 10.5.1959 is a forged and fabricated document and it does not bear her thumb mark. 8. She further came out with the case that photocopy of family settlement is not admissible in evidence. 9. In paragraph 3 of the amendment application, she has stated that Kamla was not a literate person and the alleged family settlement bears purported signature of Kamla, Jayee used to sign as Jai Narain. Sama used to sign as Shyam Narain while on the family settlement it is written as Sama. The alleged witnesses of the family settlement are the close relatives of Ram Charitra. 10. The parties also led evidence in support of their respective of cases. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation both rejected the objections filed by the contesting respondents herein and the matter was carried in revision under Section 48 of the Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the impugned order dated 12.1.2004 allowed it. 11. Shri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded to accept the family settlement solely on the basis that a sale deed dated 13.6.1960 was jointly executed by Deo Prasad S/o Girja and Gulabo Devi in respect of land at Village Gargeri ignoring the other aspects of the case which were considered by the authorities below to him. Even otherwise also, the revisional authority i.e Deputy Director of Consolidation could not re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 48 of the Act. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that in any case, the alleged family settlement being unregistered document is not admissible in evidence. 13. In reply, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand submits that the writ petition is concluded by findings of fact and no interference is called for. He referred certain portion of the statement of Smt. Gulabo Devi to support his argument that she in the cross examination has admitted the family settlement. Moreover, the fact that the sale deed dated 13.6.1960 was executed by Smt.Gulabo Devi in respect of land of Village Gargeri is sufficient to establish that the family settlement was acted upon. 14. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. The main point mooted in the present writ petition is whether the alleged family settlement dated 10.5.1959 is proved and has been acted upon by the parties, and the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation in this regard is sustainable. 16. Copies of the family settlement has been filed along with the writ petition as well as along with counter affidavit. In the said document Smt.Gulabo Devi widow of Krishna Prasad, Deo Prasad S/o Girja Saran is first party, Kamla, Daya, Ram Charittar, Shyama , Jayee S/o Bansdeo , and Munna S/o Vidya is second party. It recites that the parties are the members of the Joint Hindu Family and have ancestral holding at Village Gargeri and Kamasin. The first and second party are in separate occupation of land as per partition and some of the agricultural land is in joint occupation. To maintain the peace in the family, it has been decided to enter into a family settlement and take respective shares exclusively. The plots at Village Gargeri were given to the first party and the plots at Village Kamasin were given to the second party. Shri Sheo Murat Srivastava is the scribe of the document. Gunakar Nath Mishra and Satya Narain Dubey also signed the documents as arbitrators/mediators. 17. The plots at Village Gargeri were given to the first party and the plots at Village Kamasin were given to the second party. Shri Sheo Murat Srivastava is the scribe of the document. Gunakar Nath Mishra and Satya Narain Dubey also signed the documents as arbitrators/mediators. 17. In the cross examination, Ram Charittar S/o Bansdeo has admitted that Gunakar Nath Mishra one of the arbitrators is his real brother in law (Salle) and is alive. Neither Gunakar Nath Mishra nor the other arbitrator who has signed the document were produced in the witness box to prove the said family settlement. This is one aspect of the case. 18. It is specific case of Smt.Gulabo Devi that the said document was not signed by Sidhnath, Kamla, Jayee and Munna and Kamla was not a literate person and he could not sign the document in question. The family settlement purports to contain the signature of Kamla. It is also relevant to note that on the basis of the said family settlement the contesting respondents never applied for mutation or recording the names in the revenue record in terms of the family settlement. 19. These circumstances were taken into consideration by the Consolidation Officer and the first appellate authority, Settlement Officer of Consolidation to come to the conclusion that the alleged family settlement dated 10.5.1959 is not proved. They have also noticed that in the original objection dated 30.4.1990, no such plea that there was a family settlement between the parties was put forward. A plea of partition was put forward instead and through interpolation plea of family settlement was set out. The Deputy Director of Consolidation very conveniently ignored all these aspects of the case and in my view wrongly. 20. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that one of the reversal, therefore, he was required to take into consideration all those facts and circumstances which were taken into account by the authorities below to him. The finding that there was family settlement is thus vitiated as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the various other circumstances which were considered by the authorities below. 21. It has failed to take various into consideration/circumstances; some of them are noted below:- (i) In their objections, the contesting respondents have not disclosed the date of the family settlement. 21. It has failed to take various into consideration/circumstances; some of them are noted below:- (i) In their objections, the contesting respondents have not disclosed the date of the family settlement. (ii) In the objections they came out with the case that there was a partition in the family and after interpolation plea of family settlement was put in. (iii) The family settlement was not disclosed prior to commencement of consolidation in the Village. The respondents did not apply for mutation of their names or that the name of Smt. Gulabo Devi may be expunged in the revenue record in the light of the alleged family settlement since 1959 till the date of the filing of the objections for about 30 years. (iv) None of the mediators or the arbitrators namely Gunakar Nath Mishra or Satya Narain Dubey were examined to prove the document in question. (v) One of the objectors Parshu Ram S/o Daya Shanker filed an affidavit denying the alleged family settlement. He has deposed that Smt.Gulabo Devi was in occupation of the property in dispute till the date of the execution of the sale deed to the petitioner and had 2/3rd share. (vi) The case with regard to signatures of Jayee, Sama and Kamla etc. which was accepted by the authorities below has been ignored by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 22. Initially a compromise application was filed before the Consolidation Officer by the contesting respondents herein, and what happened after remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to that compromise application has not come on the record. 23. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that Smt.Gulabo Devi in her cross examination has admitted the family settlement. Much emphasis was laid by him on a single sentence of her statement that family settlement was signed by Vishwa Nath Chaubey. The said sentence should be read in the context of the entire statement and cannot be read out of context. She has stated that she knew Vishwa Nath Chaubey who has died. In the entire statement she has denied and disputed the family settlement. An admission should be clear and specific. 24. In my considered view, the one sentence on which the emphasis was laid does not amount an admission of family settlement. She has stated that she knew Vishwa Nath Chaubey who has died. In the entire statement she has denied and disputed the family settlement. An admission should be clear and specific. 24. In my considered view, the one sentence on which the emphasis was laid does not amount an admission of family settlement. It is not the case of the contesting respondents that Viswa Nath Chaubey was one of the arbitrators or mediators who signed the document as such. When the statement of Smt. Gulabo Devi was recorded, she was aged about 85 years. Very specifically in her deposition, she has stated that there was no partition and she is in occupation of her 2/3rd share. In the context of the entire statement, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the above portion of the statement of Smt. Gulabo Devi amounts admission cannot be accepted. 25. There is another aspect of the case- that a revisional court while exercising a revisional jurisdiction under section 48 of the U.P.C.H Act cannot be re-appreciate the evidence. 26. There is one more aspect which needs consideration. 27. The sale deed dated 13.6.1960 does not recite that there was any family settlement. There is no recital nor there is any evidence on record to show that what was sold through the sale deed was ancestral properties of the parties. In this factual situation it is too much to say that on the basis of the said sale deed, the family settlement in question stands proved. 28. It will not be out of place to mention that many factual aspects were high lighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to establish that the family settlement is a document which has been prepared for the purposes of the case. He referred revenue entries spreading over decades to show that name of Smt. Gulabo Devi was continued to be recorded in the revenue record. He also laid emphasis that in the family settlement the plot nos. of Village Gargeri have been mentioned by sub division numbers such as Plot Nos. 84/1, 84/2 while as a matter of fact the sub division number was allotted much after the family settlement. Reference was made to Khatauni of agricultural area 1360 Fasli and other documents. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell upon all these aspects of the case in detail. 84/1, 84/2 while as a matter of fact the sub division number was allotted much after the family settlement. Reference was made to Khatauni of agricultural area 1360 Fasli and other documents. It is not necessary for this Court to dwell upon all these aspects of the case in detail. Suffice it to state that at this stage the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is vitiated as various relevant circumstances which were considered by the authorities below to him were not taken into account. 29. From the record it does not appear whether original family settlement deed in question is on the record or not. This aspect should also be taken into consideration while deciding the revision. 30. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to state here that the burden to prove the family settlement lies on the shoulders of the contesting respondents, in view of the fact that in the basic year, the name of Smt. Gulabo Devi, the predecessor interest of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record. 31. In view of above discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The common impugned order dated 12.1.2004 passed in revision nos. 515 and 606 is hereby set-aside. The matter is restored back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to rehear and re decide the two revisions a fresh. Since the matter is old one, the Deputy Director of Consolidation will do good by deciding the revisions nos. 515 and 606 within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Petition allowed) _____________