Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— This writ petition seeks to challenge the judgement and order dated 11.10.1972, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh, whereby the revision petition preferred by the opposite parties before him against the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation and that of the Consolidation Officer was allowed. 2. I have heard Sri Balram Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the material available on record. 3. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the dispute arose during consolidation proceedings in respect of land of Khata Nos. 32, 33 and 37, situate in village Madafarpur, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh. However, the dispute in the present petition is confined only in respect of land of Khata nos. 32 and 37. According to the facts on record, in the basic year, the land of Khata No. 32 was recorded in the name of opposite parties (or predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties). Khata No.37, in the basic year, was recorded in the name of Ram Prasad Singh i.e. opposite party no.2. The pedigree in the instant case is not disputed, which is as under: Sudishnarayan Singh Udraijsingh Jogi Singh Munna Singh Israil Singh Sher Bahadur Singh Chhotey Lal Avadhesh Prasad Ganesh Singh Laxman Singh Ram Prasad Rajdev Singh Shiv Prasad Singh Rajpati Singh Tribhuvan Singh Ranbahadur Singh Tej Bahadur Singh Ranjit Singh Manmohan Singh 4. Though, the land of Khata No. 33 is not in dispute in the instant petition but the background of the disputed land relating to said khata is also pertinent to be given. 5. Khata no.33, in the basic year, was recorded in the names of Ram Deo Singh, Sheo Prasad Singh, Ran Bahadur Singh, Tej Bahadur Singh, Ranjit Singh, Manmohan Singh and Israil Singh. In respect of said Khata, objection was filed by Ram Prasad Singh stating therein that it was ancestral property and as such he should be recorded as co-sharer. 5. Khata no.33, in the basic year, was recorded in the names of Ram Deo Singh, Sheo Prasad Singh, Ran Bahadur Singh, Tej Bahadur Singh, Ranjit Singh, Manmohan Singh and Israil Singh. In respect of said Khata, objection was filed by Ram Prasad Singh stating therein that it was ancestral property and as such he should be recorded as co-sharer. Another objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was preferred by petitioner-Sher Bahadur Singh, stating therein that at the time of death of Munna Singh, since only his father Israil Singh (amongst the brothers of Munna Singh) was alive, as such after the death of Munna Singh, two-third portion of the land came in possession of Israil Singh and one third of the land came in possession of Jogi Singh and since then they are in possession. The issue before the Consolidation Officer, Pratapgah in respect of land of Khata No. 33 was to the effect that as to whether Ram Prasad Singh is co-share holder of the land of Khata No. 33. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter and held that in respect of land of Khata No. 33, Sher Bahadur Singh, Chhotey Lal and Awadhesh Prasad Singh be recorded as legal heirs of the deceased Israil Singh and along with them, name of Ram Prasad Singh be recorded as co-share holder. So far as the decision in respect of land of Khata No. 33 is concerned, it appears that the parties do not have any dispute and hence the same was not raised any further. However, in respect of the land of Khata Nos.32 and 37 parties are at loggerheads. So far as the claim of respective parties over the land in Khata no. 32 is concerned, as stated above, this Khata in the basic year was recorded in the name of Ram Deo Singh, Sheo Prasad Singh, Tribhuvan Singh, Tej Bahadur Singh, Ranjit Singh and Ram Prasad Singh and objection was moved under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by petitioner-Sher Bahadur Singh claiming therein his co-tenancy rights on the ground that the land in question was ancestral and his share was to the extent of two-third of the total area. 6. 6. So far as the land of Khata No. 37 is concerned, it was recorded in the name of Ram Prasad, son of Laxman Singh and Sher Bahadur Singh and others had filed objection stating therein that they were co-tenants and that their share was two-third in the land in dispute which was ancestral. The Consolidation Officer considering the entire evidence led before him and taking into account all the facts and circumstances of case, in his judgement dated 14.07.1971 held that in respect of Khata No. 32, along with other recorded tenure-holders, the names of Sher Bahadur Singh, Chhotey Lal Singh and Awadhesh Prasad Singh (petitioners) be recorded and accordingly determined the shares of the respective parties in the said Khata. The Consolidation Officer by the said judgement also held that Sher Bahadur Singh, Chhotey Lal and Awadhesh Prasad Singh are the co-tenants along with Ram Prasad Singh in respect of land of Khata No. 37. After determining the co-tenancy, the Consolidation Officer determined the respective shares of the parties. 7. Against the aforesaid judgement dated 14.07.1971, two appeals by the opposite parties herein were preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned appellate court after considering the entire evidence available on record did not find it appropriate to set aside the judgement of the Consolidation officer and maintained the said judgement by order dated 18.03.1972. 8. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.03.1972, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, whereby two appeals preferred by the opposite parties were dismissed and judgement dated 14.07.1971, passed by the Consolidation Officer was confirmed, two revision-petitions were preferred by Ram Prasad Singh i.e. opposite party no. 2. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision petitions while setting aside the judgement and order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 18.03.1972 and also the judgement and order dated 14.07.1971, passed by the Consolidation Officer. 9. The question which needs consideration by the Court in the instant case is as to whether the revisional court i.e. the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction vested in it under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 10. 9. The question which needs consideration by the Court in the instant case is as to whether the revisional court i.e. the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction vested in it under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act or not. 10. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that the petitioners and opposite parties were held to be co-tenants with their respective shares of the Khatas in dispute on the basis of pedigree which is not in dispute by the judgement dated 14.07.1971, passed by the Consolidation Officer. A perusal of the aforesaid judgement of the Consolidation Officer clearly reveals that the said judgement is a well discussed judgement and the findings regarding co-tenancy were arrived at by the Consolidation Officer on the basis of appropriate evaluation of the evidence available on record. 11. The finding of the facts regarding co-tenancy rights between the parties recorded by the Consolidation Officer was affirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while dismissing the appeals. However, revisional court has reversed the findings recorded by both the courts below. A perusal of the impugned judgement dated 11.10.1972, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation reveals that the only reason indicated for reversing the judgement of the trial court as well as appellate court is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that keeping in view the circumstances, under which Ram Prasad had made his deposition in some previous proceedings, his statement in previous proceedings is inadmissible in the current consolidation proceedings. In this regard, it is noteworthy that in mutation proceedings which arose prior to consolidation operations on the death of Munna Singh, Ram Prasad had laid his claim over the property stating therein that the same was joint property. The impugned order shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not indicated any plausible reason as to why the statement made by Ram Prasad in the mutation proceedings, which were drawn before consolidation operations, is not an admissible piece of evidence. The creditworthiness of the claim put forth by Ram Prasad and others i.e. opposite parties clearly gets eroded by the stand taken by Ram Prasad himself in the mutation proceedings wherein it was admitted that the property in dispute was joint property. The creditworthiness of the claim put forth by Ram Prasad and others i.e. opposite parties clearly gets eroded by the stand taken by Ram Prasad himself in the mutation proceedings wherein it was admitted that the property in dispute was joint property. Inconsistency between the statement of Ram Prasad made in the mutation proceedings and the claim put forth by him in the consolidation proceedings, out of which instant writ petition has arisen, impeaches his claim. 12. It is well settled legal principle that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, while exercising the revisional power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, can set aside the findings recorded by the authorities below i.e. Settlement Officer, Consolidation or Consolidation Officer, if their findings are found to be illegal, irregular or improper. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot substitute his own findings. Regard can be had to the judgement of this Court, reported in 2002 (20) LCD 110, Sri Jangi Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others. 13. The judgement and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under challenge in the instant writ petition, if scrutinized on the test of the legal principle enunciated by this Court in the case of Sri Jangi Lal (supra), cannot be allowed to sustain for the reason that it has substituted its own findings in place of findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and Consolidation Officer. The reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for discarding the findings recorded by the authorities below are also not tenable, as discussed above. 14. The concurrent finding of facts recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not have been upset by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without giving any plausible reason for setting aside the same. 15. As observed above, the only reason indicated for setting aside the judgement and order passed by the appellate court as well as the trial court by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not tenable. The Court finds that the judgement by the trial court which was affirmed by the appellate court is based on appreciation of evidence available on record and upsetting the same. The Court finds that the judgement by the trial court which was affirmed by the appellate court is based on appreciation of evidence available on record and upsetting the same. The reason indicated by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is fallacious inasmuch as the stand taken by Ram Prasad that the property in question was not ancestral property and hence, the petitioners do not have any co-tenancy rights gets diluted by his own statement made in the previous mutation proceedings. There is nothing on record to establish that the stand taken by Ram Prasad has no where been denied in any form by him. 16. In light of discussions and reasons given above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned judgement and order dated 11.10.1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh as contained in annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. However, there will be no order as to costs. _____________