JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Challenging the order dated 31st of January, 1976 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision No. 476 of 1972: Rajendra Singh son of Bechan Singh v. Ram Sabad and others, the present writ petition has been filed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order has allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order of the two Courts below to him and ordered that the name of Rajendra Singh be recorded as Sirdar over the plot No. 40 area 0.91 acre and plot No. 74 area 0.81 acre and name of Mahant Ram Shanker shall be expunged from these plots. Indisputably, there is a Vaishno Math in village Rampur Pandey known as Rampur Akhara. It has vast landed properties in the form of grove and Bhumidhari plots spread over eleven villages. All these properties are being managed by Mahant of the Akhara. In the basic year of the consolidation, plot Nos. 40 and 74 with respect to which the dispute is confined in the present writ petition, were recorded in the name of Mahant Ram Shanker; at the time of commencement of consolidation operation in the village. During the consolidation operation, two sets of objections were filed, one by Rajendra Singh and another by Ram Sabad Singh and others. The present writ petition is confined to the objection filed by Rajendra Singh. 2. The notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published on 28th of May, 1969 in the village Harnahi. The disputed plots are situate in the said village. 3. Rajendra Singh (hereinafter described as the contesting respondents) is the main contestant who pleaded in his objection that he is in possession of the disputed plots. He had taken these plots from Mahant Sukhdev Das who had executed a deed in his favour for a sum of Rs. 3,150/-. It was further pleaded that earlier these plots were grove and with the passage of time, the trees dried up and had fallen down, Mahant Sukhdev Das permitted him to replant the trees and look after them. He further pleaded that the name of Sukhdev Das be expunged from the revenue record. It was further pleaded that Ram Shanker Das wrongly got his name recorded in the revenue record. He further pleaded that the name of Sukhdev Das be expunged from the revenue record. It was further pleaded that Ram Shanker Das wrongly got his name recorded in the revenue record. He had no authority to execute sale-deed in the year 1963 in favour of the objector second set who are the petitioners herein. 4. The objectors second set who are the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed objection raising various pleas and claimed by refuting the contesting respondents’ contention. They claimed that they have rightly purchased the property in dispute from Mahant Ram Shankar Das, the recorded tenure holder, who was validly appointed by Mahant Sukhdev Das as Mahant. 5. There were two sets of opposite parties. They filed different written statements/reply. They supported the objections filed by the petitioners. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as ten issues were framed. The Consolidation Officer after consideration of evidence in detail, led by the parties, by the order dated 10th of January, 1972 dismissed the objections filed by Rajendra Singh and accepted the objections filed by the petitioners and ordered that the name of Mahant Ram Shanker Das Chela Sukhdev Das be expunged from the revenue record and in his place name of Sri Bhagwati Singh (purchaser from Mahant Ram Shanker Das) son of Dubari Singh (petitioners) be recorded. The said order was confirmed in appeal No. 6065 which was preferred by Rajendra Singh before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, by the order dated 12th of February, 1976. The matter was carried further in revision No. 476 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by the impugned order dated 31st of January, 1976 allowed it and ordered that the name of Rajendra Singh be recorded over the disputed plots. Hence the present writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri M.D. Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded in his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the impugned order is bad for non-consideration of relevant material on record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has misdirected himself and has passed the impugned order in a very curious manner. Admittedly, the plots in dispute were Math properties. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the impugned order is bad for non-consideration of relevant material on record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has misdirected himself and has passed the impugned order in a very curious manner. Admittedly, the plots in dispute were Math properties. There is no material to show that the disputed plots were ever given to the contesting respondents. The contesting respondent has failed to prove its settlement in his favour. 9. The contesting respondent failed to prove that the plots in dispute were given to him by Mahant Sukhdev Das for a consideration of Rs. 3,150/-. The finding that the said plot was given by Mahant Sukhdev Das is based on no evidence. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the contesting respondent is taking shifting stand. There was a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C wherein he had come out with the case that the plot in dispute was given to him by Mahant Ram Shanker under a deed. The said deed has not seen the light of the day yet. Before the consolidation Court he took a stand that it was given to him by Mahant Sukhdev Das orally. There is no evidence of such settlement nor is there any evidence with regard to the payment of Rs. 3,150/-. 10. Secondly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly held that there is no custom of succession of Mahantship in the Math. There is voluminous documentary evidence to show the line of succession of Mahantship besides the oral evidence. The mutation in the revenue record from time to time in favour of successive Mahants also proves the line of succession of Mahantship as also the possession of Math over the landed properties. The name of contesting respondent was never recorded in the revenue record and this matter was examined in depth by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well. It was found by them that the relevant column was blank and the contesting respondent with the help of revenue officials got his name entered by manipulation against the blank column without there being any proceeding in this regard. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is wrong in recording a finding of possession in favour of the contesting respondent. He is also wrong to record that merely on the basis of possession the respondent No. 1 has acquired Sirdari right. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is wrong in recording a finding of possession in favour of the contesting respondent. He is also wrong to record that merely on the basis of possession the respondent No. 1 has acquired Sirdari right. The findings recorded in the impugned order are perverse and are based on ipse dixit of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. In any view of the matter, the line of succession of Mahantship could not have been disputed by the contesting respondent as he is not the claimant of Mahantship. Nobody else who might feel aggrieved has come forward to challenge the line of succession of Mahantship. In the absence of any reliable or cogent evidence with regard to the settlement of the disputed plots in favour of contesting respondent, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. Sri M.D. Singh, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the rights of the parties were adjudicated upon by the criminal Court in proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. which was followed by a suit before the Revenue Court instituted against the contesting respondents. The said suit was dismissed by the Revenue Court but proceedings were abated in appeal. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are essentially findings of fact and no interference in the present writ petition is called for. 13. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is desirable to notice the facts of the case, the evidence led by the parties as also the relevant findings returned by the consolidation Courts, first. 14. There is no dispute that originally the plots in dispute belonged to Math Rampur Akhara. In the revenue record these plots were recorded before and after the abolition of Zamindari as grove belonging to Math. Mahant Rang Das of Rampur Akhara appointed his Chela Mahant Sukhdev Das by means of the document dated November 4, 1927 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), during his life time. This document is not in dispute. Subsequently, Sukhdev Dass during his life time by the document dated December 15, 1954 appointed his Chela Sri Ram Shanker Dass as Mahant. A copy of the said document is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Nobody disputed the said document. This document is not in dispute. Subsequently, Sukhdev Dass during his life time by the document dated December 15, 1954 appointed his Chela Sri Ram Shanker Dass as Mahant. A copy of the said document is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Nobody disputed the said document. Annexure-8 to the writ petition is the extract of Khatauni wherein the name of Mahant Ram Shanker Dass Chela Baba Sukhdev Dass was ordered to be mutated vide Case No. 1969 in the revenue record. There is also oral evidence in the form of statement of Ram Bahadur Pandey, Sabhapati, stating that there is a custom of appointment of Mahant by Guru to his Chela. It is Mahant Ram Shanker Dass who had executed the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the disputed plots. The said sale-deed has been held to be invalid by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that Mahant Ram Shanker Dass could not have been appointed as Mahant as the petitioners failed to prove the line of succession of Mahantship in the Math. He was of the opinion that there is no evidence to prove the line of succession nor any such custom which may be prevalent in the Math, has been proved. 15. In this regard, issues were struck before the Consolidation Officer. Issue No. 1 is whether Mahant Ram Shanker Dass was Mahant and was the manager of Math property. Issue No. 3 was whether the sale-deed dated 28th of March, 1963 executed by Mahant Ram Shanker Das in favour of the petitioner is valid and issue No. 4, whether the petitioners have become Bhumidhar of the disputed plots. All these issues were taken up together. The Consolidation Officer examined the evidence threadbare. It was noticed that the name of Mahant Ram Shanker Dass is recorded as Bhumidhar in the revenue record as also the disputed plot is the property of Math Rampur Akhara. The names of various Mahants from time to time were found to be recorded in the revenue record. Mahant Rang Nath as per the custom in the Math during his life time appointed his Chela Sukhdev Das as Mahant and similarly Sukhdev Das on 15th of December, 1954 appointed his Chela Ram Shanker Das who on 28th of March, 1963 executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. Mahant Rang Nath as per the custom in the Math during his life time appointed his Chela Sukhdev Das as Mahant and similarly Sukhdev Das on 15th of December, 1954 appointed his Chela Ram Shanker Das who on 28th of March, 1963 executed a sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. The execution of the sale-deed has not been opposed or contested by anybody of the Math or any other person who may be related or connected in any manner whatsoever with the Math. It is being opposed only by the contesting respondent Rajendra Singh. It was further noticed that the name of Mahant Sukhdev Das, in pursuance of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo dated 4th of January, 1963 was struck and name of Mahant Ram Shanker Das was recorded in the revenue record. The trial Court also considered that the Case No. 1976 was decided by the judgment dated 8th of March, 1957 on the admission of Sukhdev Das that Mahant Ram Shanker Das has been appointed by him as Mahant. In pursuance of the order of Supervisor Kanoongo name of Mahant Ram Shanker Das was mutated over all the landed properties spreading over in eleven villages of the Math. 16. A bare perusal of the said document dated 15th December, 1954 would show that the appointment of Mahant Ram Shanker Das took place in the presence of saints community and it is signed by them. It also recites that Mahant Ram Shanker Das is being appointed as per the custom prevalent in Vairagi Akhara. The document also recites the appointment of Mahant Sukhdev Das, the outgoing Mahant in the like manner. Statement of Mahant Sukhdev Das was recorded who was also cross-examined. He has reiterated and confirmed the appointment of Mahant Ram Shanker Das. Nothing could be elucidated in the cross-examination against the stand taken by him in the examination in chief. 17. As against above, there is denial by the respondent. There, the irresistible conclusion is that Mahant Ram Shanker Dass Chela of Sukhdev Das, was appointed as Mahant by his Guru Sukhdev Das. The appointment took place during the life time of Sukhdev Das. 18. The Deputy Director of Consolidation who has discussed the matter in paragraph 14 of his judgment has ignored all these things. There, the irresistible conclusion is that Mahant Ram Shanker Dass Chela of Sukhdev Das, was appointed as Mahant by his Guru Sukhdev Das. The appointment took place during the life time of Sukhdev Das. 18. The Deputy Director of Consolidation who has discussed the matter in paragraph 14 of his judgment has ignored all these things. A perusal of the paragraph 14 would show that he has decided the issue in a slipshod method without caring to look into the evidence and the findings recorded by the two Courts below to him. He started discussing the case on wrong assumption that no witness has been produced to prove that there is custom and usage when a Guru relinquishes the Gaddi in his life time, he appoints his successor. It could not be proved by a single instance. He then made an observation that Panchnama of that year 1927 merely nominates Sukhdev Dass as Mahant. The approach of Deputy Director of Consolidation is faulty and illegal and arbitrary. There is voluminous evidence on record in relation to succession of Mahantship. The question of Mahantship was being disputed by a person namely the contesting respondent who is a total stranger to the Math. 19. The basic question is whether such a person like the contesting respondent who has no interest could challenge the succession of Mahantship in an indirect manner. Even for the sake of argument if it is taken that it could be challenged by such person, has such person led any evidence to prove a different line of succession? In the present case the answer is plainly “no”. Reading and rereading the para 14 of the impugned order would show that except discarding the line of succession of Mahantship on irrelevant ground, there is no iota of evidence worth the name on record to show a different or distinct line of succession prevalent in the Math. It is a case where documentary evidence and oral evidence coupled with the follow up action by way of mutation in the revenue record and acceptance of line of succession, as propounded by the petitioners is there and yet the revisional Court on its whims discarded them without any rhyme or reason on assumptions and presumptions that there is no evidence. The finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in para 14 of the impugned order is, therefore, unjustified, unwarranted and is liable to be ignored. 20. The respondent’s argument at this juncture is that on 2.1.1967 Mahant Sukhdeo executed a sale-deed of 16 plots situate in Bhagwanpur, therefore, Sukhdeo continued to be Mahant. The petitioners submit in reply that these plots were his personal properties. The Deputy Director of Consolidation proceeds on the footing that they were Math properties. Be that as it may, the said approach of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is faulty for many reasons. Firstly, it was not put to an issue that these plots were Math properties. Secondly, even if they were so, it would not invalidate the earlier action appointing Mahant Rama Shankar Das as Chela way back on 15.12.1954. Appointment of Mahant Ram Shanker Prasad is an accomplished fact. It was given effect to in the revenue record by judicial order also which is dated 26.9.1957 (Annexure-3), and was never questioned. All these actions and judicial order in particular could not be nullified, even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the sale-deed dated 2.1.1967 was in respect of Math property. 21. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to notice the various aspects of the case which were taken into consideration by the Consolidation Officer while deciding the issue Nos. 1 to 4, such as mutation orders, order passed in Case No. 1976, the fact that in pursuance of the said mutation order, mutation was affected in respect of the other properties spreading over in eleven villages etc.. 22. The finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation in this regard are well considered findings and are based on proper analysis of the evidence and material on record. They could not have been set aside without pointing out any error therein in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The revisional Court has decided the matter as a Court of first instance, which it could not do. The scope of interference under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be considered later on. 23. The revisional Court has decided the question of possession in favour of contesting respondent Rajendra Singh on the basis of Khatauni 1354 and 1355 Fasli. The scope of interference under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will be considered later on. 23. The revisional Court has decided the question of possession in favour of contesting respondent Rajendra Singh on the basis of Khatauni 1354 and 1355 Fasli. These entries were disregarded being Farzi (fabricated one) by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 24. The said finding has not been set aside by the revisional Court although it noticed the argument of counsel in this regard. It was very much influenced by the fact that in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Rajendra Singh was found in possession over the disputed plots on 22.6.1963 and the property was ordered to be released in his favour on 6th of September, 1967. 25. As regards the recording of name of Rajendra Singh in 1354 and 1355 Fasli is concerned, it has been considered by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation who found that the name of Rajendra Singh, the contesting respondent, was interpolated in the aforesaid two Khataunis. The matter has been discussed under the issue No. 9. 26. Rajendra Singh claimed in his objection under Section 9(2) of the Act that he has been in possession of the disputed land since before 1356 Fasli and as such he has become Adhiwasi on the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This is the sole basis of the contesting respondent’s case. The Khasras of 1354 Fasli, 1355 Fasli, 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli are on record wherein the disputed plots have been recorded as grove. No crop is recorded in those Khasras. In 1359 Fasli over a portion of disputed plot one passage is found recorded. These documents further show that in the column of proprietorship, the name of Mahant Sukhdev Dass is recorded. These extracts are with regard to Khewat No. 9, Patti Rang Dass. In column No. 20 the name of Rajendra Singh son of Bachchan has been entered into. The said entry according to the petitioners is forged and fabricated. To judge the plea of fabrication, interpolation of name of Rajendra Singh, the Consolidation Officer examined the original Khatauni (record of rights) of 1354 Fasli and 1355 Fasli wherein column 6 has been found vacant. The column relating to the nature of possession is also vacant. The said entry according to the petitioners is forged and fabricated. To judge the plea of fabrication, interpolation of name of Rajendra Singh, the Consolidation Officer examined the original Khatauni (record of rights) of 1354 Fasli and 1355 Fasli wherein column 6 has been found vacant. The column relating to the nature of possession is also vacant. The Consolidation Officer has observed that as per the prevalent practice as also prescribed by the then Land Record Manual, Khasra is prepared from Khatauni. In Khatauni, column No. 6 is vacant and thus, in Khasra name of Rajendra Singh in column 20 is result of manipulation. He has noticed that there is a overwriting in the revenue record. The overwriting is apparent as it is written in a different handwriting. The above conclusion has been supported by the Consolidation Officer with the help of Roznamcha. He examined the diary and other related records relating to recording of name of an occupant in Khatauni. He discussed the paras 166 and 168 of the Land Record Manual and reached to the conclusion that in the corresponding/related record name of Rajendra Singh does not find place. There is a good deal of discussion in the order of the Consolidation Officer with regard to the manner of recording of occupants’ name in the Khasra. Consolidation Officer very minutely considered all the aspects of the case to come to a definite conclusion that the name of Rajendra Singh was added subsequently as a result of manipulation. He has taken into consideration the fact that if had Rajendra Singh been in possession, his name first should be recorded in column 5 of the Khasra and at any rate it could not be recorded in column 20, after final preparation of Khatauni. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation reached to the conclusion that Rajendra Singh got his name interpolated in the column 20 finding it blank. In other words, it is clear-cut case of interpolation. 27. The various features of the case (only some of which have been noted above) which were considered by the Consolidation Officer, have been totally overlooked and ignored by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is order of reversal and he was under legal obligation to consider all the features of the case before disagreeing with the order of two Courts below to him. 28. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is order of reversal and he was under legal obligation to consider all the features of the case before disagreeing with the order of two Courts below to him. 28. Viewed as above, the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Rajendra Singh was in occupation cannot be upheld. The same is vitiated and is based against the evidence on record. 29. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and the learned counsel for the respondent as well, have laid much emphasis on the proceeding under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C wherein Rajendra Singh was found in possession and order releasing the property in his favour was passed and a suit under Section 229B/209 for recovry of property was filed which was dismissed and in 1370 Fasli crop, Charahi, makka etc. has been shown in the name of Rajendra Singh. 30. The proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C are quasi criminal proceedings and are summary in nature. The criminal Courts order releasing of the property in favour of such person is always subject to final decision of civil/revenue Court as the case may be. The findings recorded by the criminal Courts are of not much relevance so far as the Civil Court or revenue Court dealing with the question relating to title is concerned. Even if for the sake of argument, the possession of Rajendra Singh as found by the criminal Court is accepted, it will not make him Sirdar. Reason is that immediately thereafter suit under Section 229B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed for declaration and ejectment which was initially dismissed. Matter was pending in appeal and the proceedings were abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the commencement of the consolidation operation in the village. It is not at all understandable as to how and under what provision of law such a person would become Sirdar. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not referred to any legal provision under which such a person would acquire any right what to say Sirdari right. The case of Rajendra Singh was that he was in occupation of the disputed plot even before the commencement of the consolidation operation, which he failed to prove. This aspect of the case has been highlighted by the Consolidation officer. 31. The case of Rajendra Singh was that he was in occupation of the disputed plot even before the commencement of the consolidation operation, which he failed to prove. This aspect of the case has been highlighted by the Consolidation officer. 31. Initially, before the criminal Court Rajendra Singh took the stand that under some document, he was permitted by Mahant Ram Shanker Dass on payment of Rs. 3,150/- to replant trees in the disputed plots. He, subsequently, before the consolidation Court took a different stand that he was orally permitted to replant the trees by Mahant Sukhdev Das. Thus, it is apparent that Rajendra Singh has taken shifting stand at different stages of litigation and unfortunately he could not prove either. Except making a bald statement, he could not produce any evidence to substantiate his plea. On the contrary, the revenue records negates his stand. 32. The entry which is relevant is of the year 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli to confer any right, title or interest to an occupant as provided by Section 20(b) (1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. There is no document on record to show the recording of Rajendra Singh’s name as occupant either in 1356 Fasli or 1359 Fasli. The Apex Court in case of Bachan and another v. Kankar and others, AIR 1972 SC 2157 , has held that a entry incorrectly introduced by Patwari into the record of rights in favour of a person is fictitious and confers no right on such person under Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The relevant portion is reproduced below : “The entry under Section 20 (b) (i) in order to enable a person to obtain adhivasi rights must be an entry under the provisions of law, namely, the Land Revenue Act, 1901. An entry incorrectly introduced by the Patwari into the record of rights in favour of the respondents by reason of ill-will or hostility of Patwari against the appellants, is fictitious and the respondents are not entitled to claim adhivasi rights under Section 20 (b). A fictitious entry is one which is not genuine. It is an unreal entry. A fabricated entry is a fictitious entry.” 33. In the basic year i.e. on the date of commencement of the consolidation operation in the village the disputed plots were not recorded in the name of the contesting respondent. A fictitious entry is one which is not genuine. It is an unreal entry. A fabricated entry is a fictitious entry.” 33. In the basic year i.e. on the date of commencement of the consolidation operation in the village the disputed plots were not recorded in the name of the contesting respondent. He filed objection claiming that the revenue entry is incorrect and his name be recorded. The burden was upon him to show as to how the revenue entry of long standing is incorrect. Pointedly, a query was put by the Court to the learned counsel for the respondent to show his source of title to the disputed plots. In reply, he could refer the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and judgement delivered in his favour by the revenue Court. The Court was taken through the judgement. The judgement of the trial Court is based upon the order passed by criminal Court under 145 Cr.P.C. Question relating to title of a landed property could not be decided by criminal Court, and here, was not decided by it. It dealt with question of possession of the respective parties. Thus, the Court dealing with the question of the title was not justified in heavily weighing its finding in the light of criminal Court’s order. Secondly, admittedly, in appeal the entire proceedings including the trial Court’s judgment, was abated due to notification of consolidation operation in the village. Before the Consolidation Courts, the parties led evidence to prove their respective cases. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the proceedings which were abated, prior to the consolidation, as no finality was attached to them. Consequently it follows that the respondent has utterly failed to prove his source of title. He could succeed on his own strength not otherwise. 34. Taking the worst case that the petitioners have also failed to prove their case, then the basic year entry in the revenue record in that eventuality would be maintained. 35. The upshot of the above discussion is that contesting respondent stands nowhere, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is perverse and against the material on record and needs correction. 36. Linked with the above, the next issue debated is with regard to the scope and extent of jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in such matters. 37. 36. Linked with the above, the next issue debated is with regard to the scope and extent of jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, in such matters. 37. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation have found the entry recording the name of Rajendra Singh as non genuine. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation as the law then stood i.e. prior to the amendment by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 which came into force w.e.f. 10th of November, 1980, was final Court of fact. 38. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is dated 31st of January, 1976. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was amended by the U.P. Act No. 3 of 2002 by inserting Explanation-3. The said Explanation for the sake of convenience is reproduced below : “Explanation (3).—The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded by any subordinate authority, and also includes the power to reappreciate any oral or documentary evidence.” 39. It has been enforced w.e.f. 10th of November, 1980. In other words, there was no such Explanation available to such cases which were decided prior to 10th of November, 1980. The ambit and scope of Section 48 as it stood prior to 10th of November, 1980 has been subject-matter of consideration on various occasions by the Apex Court. 40. The ambit and scope of the section as it then stood was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sher Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1341 and it has been held that Section 48 is paramteria to Section 115 of CPC. The scope of Section 48 as it then was before the Amendment Act No. VIII of 1963 was up for consideration. It may be noted that Section 48 has been subjected to amendments from time to time. It was again amended by the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969 and the Explanations - I and II were added with retrospective effect by providing that they shall be deemed to have always been amended. It may be noted that Section 48 has been subjected to amendments from time to time. It was again amended by the U.P. Act No. 4 of 1969 and the Explanations - I and II were added with retrospective effect by providing that they shall be deemed to have always been amended. The scope of Section 48 after its amendment in 1968 again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Ram Dular v. DDC, Jaunpur and others, JT 1994 (3) SC 341. The Apex Court in the case of Sheshmani and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, JT 2000(2) SC 43, considered the ambit and scope of Section 48. Therein it has quoted from its earlier judgment of Ram Dular v. DDC, Jaunpur, JT 1994 (3) SC 341, which is reproduced below : “It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding.” Thereafter, it has laid down that if the authority below has not considered the relevant documents and ignored the ingredients of adverse possession, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was well within jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. It has been laid down that if the Consolidation Officer or Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation proceeded on wrong premises and against the settled principles of law, the order can be interfered with in revision. 41. Again, the matter was up for consideration in Gayadin v. Hanuman Prasad, JT 2000 (Suppl. 3) SC 199 : (2001) 1 SCC 501 , a decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 41. Again, the matter was up for consideration in Gayadin v. Hanuman Prasad, JT 2000 (Suppl. 3) SC 199 : (2001) 1 SCC 501 , a decision which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After noticing its earlier cases, Ram Dular (supra), Sheshmani and another (supra) and Shev Nandan and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 2000 SC 1141 , it has held as follows : “Thus, it is clear notwithstanding the fact that Section 48 has been coughed in wide terms, it only permits interference where the findings of the subordinate authority are perverse in the sense that they are not supported by evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.” 42. In view of the above, the ambit and scope of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 48 of the CH Act is not so limited as was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. At the same time, it is not so wide so as to include the appellate power. One has to find out as to whether the finding recorded by the authority below was perverse in the sense in which it is understood in legal world. If a finding is not supported by any evidence or is arrived at by ignoring a vital piece of evidence, the finding can be said to be perverse. 43. By applying the ratio of above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the present case, it is evident that here the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted as a Court of first instance as it failed to address the reasons and conclusions recorded by the Courts below to him, and thus committed illegality. 44. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of M.R. Kant Das v. DDC, 1971 RD 196, holding that the disputes relating to Mahantship cannot be decided by consolidation Courts. The consolidation Courts are meant to decide the disputes relating to tenure holders only. The dispute as to who is Mahant or Sarvarakar is of civil nature and cannot be subject-matter of consolidation Courts. This also supports the petitioner’s case. 45. Before parting with the case it may be noted that the deed allegedly executed by Sukhdev Das for a sum of Rs. The dispute as to who is Mahant or Sarvarakar is of civil nature and cannot be subject-matter of consolidation Courts. This also supports the petitioner’s case. 45. Before parting with the case it may be noted that the deed allegedly executed by Sukhdev Das for a sum of Rs. 3,150/- has not been placed on record of the consolidation Courts. Secondly, the much relied document i.e. the judgement of revenue Court in revenue suit No. 105 of 1968-69 dated 31.4.1969 (suit was abated subsequently) states that the name of contesting respondent was found to be recorded in class IX i.e. as a trespasser having no title. Had there been conferment of any title in him by any deed or action, the contesting respondent would have taken care for recording of his name under the relevant column in the revenue record. 46. Viewed as above, this Court is of the view that in view of the restricted jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he could not interfere with the well considered findings of fact which were recorded by the two Courts below to him. It has not been found that the findings of the fact as recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were perverse or against the weight of evidence. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted like a Court of first instance. He has exceeded in exercise of his jurisdiction in upsetting the findings of fact. Even otherwise, as discussed herein above, on merits also, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. Rajendra Singh, the contesting respondent, could not produce any evidence to substantiate his objections. A presumption is attached to the correctness and genuineness of the basic year entries unless the presumption is rebutted. Rajendra Singh could not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption. 47. In Dhyaneshwar Rangnath Bhandare v. Sadhu Dadu Shettigar, JT 2011 (2) SC 487, following the decisions in (1) Dhanna Mal v. Rai Bahadur Lala Moti Sagar, AIR 1927 PC 102 and (2) Gujrat Ginning and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Moti Lal Hirabhai Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1936 PC 77, it has been held that legal effects of proved facts and documents is a question of law, circumstances if warrants Court can interfere. It is a fit case, as found, for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 48. Co. Ltd. v. Moti Lal Hirabhai Spinning and Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1936 PC 77, it has been held that legal effects of proved facts and documents is a question of law, circumstances if warrants Court can interfere. It is a fit case, as found, for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 48. It may be noted that against the order of Consolidation Officer only Rajendra Singh had preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Any other person including Mahant Ram Shanker Das had not challenged the order of Consolidation Officer. Thus, the order of Consolidation Officer expunging the name of Mahant Ram Shanker Das was accepted by the Math Rampur Akhara in respect of the disputed plots. It also accepts the recording of name of the petitioners on the basis of the sale-deed dated 28th of March, 1963. That part of the order has attained finality. 49. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the order of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation are restored with costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) payable by the contesting respondent to the petitioners within a month. ——————