A.P. Sahi, J.;- The petitioner Kanhaiya Lal was recorded as a co-tenure holder in the Basic Year Revenue Records, when the consolidation operations commenced, over Khata No. 231 consisting of several plots of Village Mahuli Pargana Khairagarh Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad. 2. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 claim that the name of Kanhaiya Lal, the petitioner and that of respondent nos. 6 and 7 Tilakdhari and Purshottam were wrongly recorded as such their names should be expunged. The contention was that the names were recorded on the strength of the order passed by the Judicial Officer, Meja in Case No. 31 of 1966 dated 18.7.1967 which had been set aside in appeal by the Additional Commissioner and the pending second appeal before the Board of Revenue had abated in view of the consequences enumerated in Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. C.H. Act. They further contended that the name of Baul S/o Ishwar Deen through whom the petitioner claims succession was wrongly recorded, accordingly, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 prayed for expunging the names of the petitioner and respondent nos. 6 and 7. 3. Another set of objection was filed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, Tilakdhari and Purshottam @ Pratap @ Kally being sons of Jagai @ Lakhai supporting the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and objecting to the claim of the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal. 4. The third set of objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A of the U.P. C.H. Act contesting the sole claim of tenancy by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 alleging that the family of the petitioner and the contesting respondents was a joint family and the land being ancestral, the same deserves to be accordingly distributed in which the petitioner had half share. The petitioner claimed that the property had been acquired in an around 1312 Fasli which comes to the calendar year of 1905 AD. The branch of the petitioner had a pedigree was asserted by the petitioner as follows:- Shiv Deen Ishwar Deen Rameshwar Lakhai Baul @ Bau Purdul Sadhu Partay Tilakdhari Kanhaya Lal The branch that represented by the contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 was as follows:- Matro Siyambar Dulum Chutkau Raghubeer Ram Chandra Akkali Ram Abhilash Ram Baks 5. The branch of the petitioner had a pedigree was asserted by the petitioner as follows:- Shiv Deen Ishwar Deen Rameshwar Lakhai Baul @ Bau Purdul Sadhu Partay Tilakdhari Kanhaya Lal The branch that represented by the contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 was as follows:- Matro Siyambar Dulum Chutkau Raghubeer Ram Chandra Akkali Ram Abhilash Ram Baks 5. The aforesaid branches claimed to have common ancestors and they led evidence in support of their objections to contend their respective cases. In essence the claim of the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal was that his name finds place in the revenue extract of 1333 Fasli. The name of the petitioner was wrongly discontinued thereafter and the same was again corrected during the dispute before the Judicial Officer, Meja in Case No. 31 of 1966 through the order dated 18th July, 1967. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner also found place in the Basic Year Entry of the revenue records when the consolidation operations set in. 6. All these three sets of objections were heard by the Consolidation Officer, who concluded that from a perusal of the Khatauni of 1308 Fasli, the name of the then Zamindar Mussamat Saliva Bibi finds place whereafter the name of Siyambar, Ram Chandar, and Baul all descendents of Matro according to the pedigree referred to hereinabove were entered in 1333 Fasli and the period of their possession was stated to be 21 years. This entry was however, altered in 1348 Fasli whereby the name of the ancestor of the petitioner namely Baul S/o- Ishwar Deen was deleted and the names of the ancestors of respondent nos. 4 and 5 Siyambar and Ram Chandar found entry with a remark that their possession is for the past 36 years. This entry continued in 1356 Fasli prior to the abolition of Zamindari indicating possession of 44 years and was again repeated in 1359 Fasli indicating possession of 47 years. 7. Assessing the aforesaid entries, the Consolidation Officer came to the conclusion that the disputed property appears to have not been acquired by the ancestors of the contesting respondents as per the records of 1333 Fasli and it appears to have been acquired jointly by the ancestors of both the pedigrees. It was also held by the Consolidation Officer that it had not been exclusively settled with the ancestors of the contesting respondents. It was also held by the Consolidation Officer that it had not been exclusively settled with the ancestors of the contesting respondents. The Consolidation Officer further held that the 1333 Fasli record was the oldest and there being no contrary evidence of the said period having been filed by the respondents, the same clearly reflected that the objections filed by the contesting respondents cannot hold water. Accordingly, it was found that the name of the petitioner had been rightly entered in the records. The Consolidation Officer further found that merely because some differences in the area of the recorded holdings in the revenue records after 1348 Fasli were reflected, would not disentitle the petitioner to claim his tenancy rights. Ultimately, he found that the entire holding had been acquired by the ancestors of all three sets of objectors before him. He further found that the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were not even contesting the matter and were rather supporting the cause of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 8. The conclusion drawn was that the respondent no.8 Rameshwar had not established his participation in the agricultural operations according to the law then applicable under the Agra Tenancy Act, therefore, he cannot be held to be a cultivator with the other co-sharer and, therefore, his co-tenancy has to be accordingly construed. From an assessment of the aforesaid evidence, he came to the conclusion that the property had been acquired jointly by the ancestors of all the three objectors but the respondent no.8 had lost his rights and, therefore, half share went to the petitioner and the other half share went to the contesting respondents. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were given 1/4th each and the petitioner was declared to be the owner of half of the share of the property over Khata No. 231. On this declaration, it was held that the name of the petitioner which has been entered in the Basic Year Entry deserves to be continued. 9. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were given 1/4th each and the petitioner was declared to be the owner of half of the share of the property over Khata No. 231. On this declaration, it was held that the name of the petitioner which has been entered in the Basic Year Entry deserves to be continued. 9. The respondent Ram Abhilakh preferred an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Appellate Authority namely the Settlement Officer of Consolidation upheld all the findings of the Consolidation Officer but partly modified the same that in view of the Khatauni of 1333 Fasli there were three share holders and the claim of the petitioner and that of the respondent nos 4 and 5 was held to be 1/3 each. 10. The petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation contending that his half share as maintained by the Consolidation Officer deserves to be upheld and the appellate order to the said extent deserves to be set aside. The respondent Ram Abhilakh and others filed another revision for setting aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation with a prayer that the name of the petitioner be expunged altogether. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation in their entirety, and held that the subsequent entries in favour of the contesting respondent nos. 4 and 5 Ram Abhilakh and Ram Bux deserves to be maintained and the name of the petitioner was directed to be expunged declaring that it was only the respondent nos. 4 and 5 who were entitled to half share each. 12. Aggrieved, the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal filed the present writ petition, who died during the pendency of the same and has been substituted by his legal heirs, who have been brought on record. 13. Sri K.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed a manifest error by dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and allowing that of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on the ground, that the entry of 1333 Fasli by itself would not be conclusive and the subsequent entries of 1348 Fasli and thereafter the name of the petitioner or his ancestors were neither recorded nor any possession was found. 4 and 5 on the ground, that the entry of 1333 Fasli by itself would not be conclusive and the subsequent entries of 1348 Fasli and thereafter the name of the petitioner or his ancestors were neither recorded nor any possession was found. The Deputy Director has further indicated that the petitioner has neither filed any revenue receipts or assessment slips which would indicate that the petitioner had any possession over the holding to the extent of his share. He further held that in view of the provisions of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 which were then applicable, the petitioner could not have succeeded unless there was any evidence to prove that Baul through whom the petitioner was claiming succession, had ever contributed towards the cultivation of the holdings. He also further held that only oral testimony on behalf of the petitioner would not undo the documentary evidence that had been relied upon by the contesting respondents. He further held that Tilakdhari and Purshottam, the contesting respondents had also accepted the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 which establishes that the claim of the petitioner does not hold water. He further went on to conclude that the order of the Judicial Officer dated 18th July, 1967 had already been set aside and in such a situation, the entry of 1333 Fasli in favour of the petitioner being the sole alleged evidence deserves to discarded. 14. The background of the dispute as disclosed hereinabove, therefore relates to the entries as well as possession as per the evidence led by the parties. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings recorded by the authorities below have to be maintained and cannot be reversed by substituting novel findings in a revision unless there was a specific plea relating to any irregularity or impropriety in the findings recorded by the authorities below. He has relied on two decisions, that of Dibiya Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi and others reported in 2002 (93) RD 200 and that of Jangi Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2002 (93) RD 35. He has relied on two decisions, that of Dibiya Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi and others reported in 2002 (93) RD 200 and that of Jangi Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2002 (93) RD 35. He, therefore, submits that the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has been wrongly reversed as it had been found on facts that the ancestors of the petitioners and the contesting respondents had jointly acquired the said property and the entry of 1333 Fasli established the same. 16. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the contesting respondents Sri Ashraf holding brief of Sri Shahid Masood relied on the judgment of Jagdish Vs. Sitaram reported in 2004 (96) RD 105 to contend that the answering respondents were in lawful possession in view of the entries that have been discussed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and further the petitioner did not have any lawful right either of ownership or of possession as the petitioner had failed to establish his case through any other cogent material evidence. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in relation to his possession after the abolition of Zamindari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation presumed that since no evidence has been filed, the petitioner was not in possession over the property in dispute. The claim of the contesting respondents that they had also crystallized their rights through adverse possession was also not proved. Nonetheless the entries in their favour from 1348 Fasli onwards indicates that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the said entries right upto the abolition of Zamindari in the year 1359 Fasli. The findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Baul through whom the petitioner claims to have succeeded had died prior to the 1348 Fasli therefore, disappeared from the Khatauni of respondents. According to Section 24 of the Agra Tenancy Act, the petitioner's ancestor Baul could have claimed rights provided there was any contribution towards the cultivation of the holding which was not established by the petitioner by any evidence. 18. In the instant case, no evidence was led by the petitioner to establish that the ancestors of the petitioner had any cultivatory participation through Baul. 18. In the instant case, no evidence was led by the petitioner to establish that the ancestors of the petitioner had any cultivatory participation through Baul. Reliance has been placed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the decision of the Board of Revenue referred to in the impugned judgment. The conclusion so drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is based on the assumptions that Baul had died prior to 1348 Fasli. This finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not based on any evidence of the date of death of Baul so as to co-relate it to the provisions of the applicability of Agra Tenancy Act, 1929. In the opinion of the Court such a conclusion could have been drawn only if the date of death of Baul was established and not otherwise. It was not established by the contesting respondents that the entry of 1333 Fasli was forged or fabricated. The document itself, therefore, of an ancient origin ought not to have been discarded. 19. The issue relating to the possession was dealt with by the Consolidation Officer by examining the record of possession of 1374 Fasli and 1376 Fasli. The said record of possession clearly indicates that no specific names are given and the same would not be sufficient to disbelieve the possession of the petitioner. Further the entry indicates endorsement as "Ram Abhilakh and others" and "Ram Bux and others" which does not clarify as to who are the others referred to therein. Since the petitioner and the others are co-tenure holders were recorded in the Basic Year Entry, the contesting respondents had not been able to rebut the finding of possession successfully. Apart from this, there was no evidence with regard to exclusive possession having been discussed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in favour of the contesting respondents. The same logic about the receipts of irrigation slips would equally apply to the contesting respondents which was not discussed while assessing the comparative claim of possession of the contesting respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, proceeded to record findings on possession on the basis of assumptions without discussing the findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer as indicated hereinabove in the order dated 4.11.1974. 20. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, proceeded to record findings on possession on the basis of assumptions without discussing the findings of fact recorded by the Consolidation Officer as indicated hereinabove in the order dated 4.11.1974. 20. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the opinion of the Court has proceeded to reverse the decisions of the authorities below without proceeding anything further on the basis of assumptions which require more corroborative proof. The petitioner while assailing the aforesaid finding before this Court has not filed any evidence relating to possession so as to reject the conclusion drawn by the Deputy Director of Consolidation outright. This Court while proceeding to entertain the writ petition had passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- every year by 15th October to maintain his possession so that the contesting respondents be compensated for any loss suffered by them by virtue of the interim order dated 16.7.1975. From the records it appears that the petitioner had defaulted in making the said payment and had also moved an application for allowing some more time to make the deposit but no orders were passed. 21. The writ petition for the reasons given hereinabove, is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 3.6.1975 is quashed with a direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass fresh orders in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy this order before him.