Judgment : By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 4-9-1998 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation Muzaffarnagar (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) in Revision Nos. 262 Gopi and others Vs. Atar Singh and others and Revision No. 263, Sunil Kumar and others Vs. Atar Singh and others, whereby both the revisions were dismissed. The petitioners have also assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 12-6-1995 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar(Annexure-9 to the writ petition) and the order dated 23-2-1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer (Annexure-8 to the petition). 2. By the order dated 23-2-1994, the Consolidation Officer Roorkee allowed the objection filed by respondent no. 4 Atar Singh and expunged the name of Baldei wife of Raghubir Singh Daughter of late Sri Amar Singh from Khata No. 115 of village Raisi, on the basis of adoption deed. The Consolidation Officer at the same time dismissed the objections filed by Satpal son of Asha Ram and Sunil Kumar son of Atma Ram as well as the objection of Harbansh and Gopi. By the order dated 12-6-1995, the Appeal Nos. 187 Gopi and others Vs. Atar Singh and others and Appeal NO. 188 Sunil Kumar and others Vs. Atar Sigh and others, preferred against the order of the Consolidation Officer were dismissed by the SOC. Further aggrieved by the judgment and order revision was preferred by the petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation. The D.D.C. dismissed the revision vide order dated 4-9-1998. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners are that the predecessor of the respondent no. 4 Atar Singh as well as respondent nos. 5 to 13 namely Sobha had two sons, namely, Ganga Sahay who had died in the year 1958, and Amar Singh, who had died in the year 1971. Ganga Sahay left behind him three sons, i.e. Phullu, Bishan and Hargyan as his legal heirs. Phullu died in the year 1978. Respondent no. 4 Atar Singh is the son of Phullu. On the other side, Kala and Baldei were the son and daughter of Amar Singh. Kala is alleged to have died during the life time of late Amar Singh. Late Baldei, daughter of Amar Singh left behind her two sons-Gopi (respondent no. 9 herein) and Harbansh. Respondent no. 4 Atar Singh is the son of Phullu. On the other side, Kala and Baldei were the son and daughter of Amar Singh. Kala is alleged to have died during the life time of late Amar Singh. Late Baldei, daughter of Amar Singh left behind her two sons-Gopi (respondent no. 9 herein) and Harbansh. Harbansh had four sons Mange Ram, Boby, Raju and Sanjay. So far as the pedigree of the contesting parties is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties. 4. It is alleged by the petitioners that Amar Singh had died in the year 1971 and his only son Kala had died during his life time, therefore, the only surviving legal heir of Amar Singh was Baldei, whose name was recorded in the revenue records in the year 1972 in place of late Amar Singh by the Supervisor Kanungo. 5. It is further alleged by the petitioners that Ganga Sahay the other son of late Sobha and brother of Amar Singh died in the year 1958 and after his death, the land in question of Khata No. 115 was mutated in the name of Fullu, Bishan and Hargyan, who are sons of Ganga Sahay and this fact is not disputed between the parties. It is also not disputed that in place of late Amar Singh, the land in question was recorded in the name of his daughter Baldei in the revenue record. 6. The consolidation operations in village Raisi, district Haridwar started in the year 1990. On the basis of basic year Khatauni, Form CH 5 was issued in the name of Smt. Baldei to the extent of half share in the land in question. Objections under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act ( for short the Act) was filed on 28-5-1990 by respondent no. 4-Atar Singh, inter alia on the ground that the father of the objector, Phullu was adopted by his uncle Amar Singh, during his life time, therefore, the name of Baldei, daughter of Amar Singh, which was recorded by Supervisor Kanungo on PA-11 after the death of late Amar Singh be expunged and it was prayed that the name of objector be entered in the revenue records. One more objection was also filed on 25-8-1990 without amending the earlier objection. One more objection was also filed on 25-8-1990 without amending the earlier objection. Against the objection, filed by Atar Singh, Gopi and Harbansh filed objection on 12-8-1991 and it was prayed that in place of Smt. Baldei, their names be recorded as legal heirs. 7. It is also alleged by the petitioner that Smt. Baldei had taken a loan for purchase of a tractor from the State Bank of India Branch Raisee, district Haridwar and mortgaged her share in the land in question. That loan was not repaid, therefore, the concerned Bank requested the Collector on 2-11-1992 for initiating the recovery proceedings and the Tehsildar Laksar in turn proceeded with the recovery proceeding and a citation was issued on 11-12-1992. Subsequently on 31-3-1993, the property in question being immovable property, queries were made for supplying copy of mortgage deed etc and since the village in question was under consolidation operations, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer asked for details from the Consolidation Officer pertaining to the mortgaged land. The documents were submitted by the Consolidation Officer to Tahsildar Laksar and the property in question was attached on 29-4-1993. Thereafter it was put for auction on 31-5-1993. Atar Singh being one of the signatories of Z.A.Form No. 74 had full knowledge of the said auction purchase of the land in question. On the basis of sale certificate, which was got registered in the Office of Sub Registrar, possession was handed over to the petitioner on 16-12-1993. Photo copies of Dakhal name has been filed Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. The petitioner also applied for mutation of his name on the basis of sale certificate before the Assistant Consolidation Officer under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 8. Before the Consolidation Officer, the respondent no. 4 adduced oral as well as documentary evidence and the sons of Gopi and Harbansh also adduced their evidence. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 23-2-1994 allowed the objection of Atar Singh- respondent no.4 and directed that his name be recorded in the revenue record after expunging the name of Baldei daughter of Amar Singh. 9. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gopi and others filed Appeal No. 187 while Sunil Kumar and others filed appeal No. 188 under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar Camp Roorkee (for short SOC). 9. Aggrieved by the order dated 23-2-1994 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Gopi and others filed Appeal No. 187 while Sunil Kumar and others filed appeal No. 188 under Section 11(1) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Settlement Officer Consolidation Haridwar Camp Roorkee (for short SOC). The S.O.C. after hearing both the parties and on perusal of the evidence led by the parties did not find favour with the appellant-petitioner and ultimately by judgment and order dated 12-6-1995 dismissed both the appeals. 10. Further aggrieved by the said order dated 12-6-1995, Revision No. 262 was preferred by Gopi and others and Revision No. 263 was preferred under Section 48(1) of the Consolidation of Holding Act by Sunil Kumar and others before the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffar Nagar, camp Haridwar. The learned Assistant Director of Consolidation after hearing both the parties dismissed the revisions by his judgment and order dated 4-9-1998, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 11. Before the Consolidation Officer all the parties have adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. On the basis of objection necessary issues were framed. The controversy before the Consolidation Officer was – whether the plaintiff Atar is legal heir and Bhumidhar with transferable rights of the land in question on the basis of an adoption deed or whether Smt. Baldei married daughter of late Amar Singh is the legal who is recorded in revenue record?. 12. Plaintiff Atar Singh, to prove his case himself and also examined the witnesses of alleged adoption deed, Bishan his real uncle and claimed ownership of the land in dispute on the basis of adoption deed. Learned Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by respondent Atar Singh and directed to enter his name in revenue record on the basis of adoption deed. The objections of Smt. Baldei were rejected. The learned SOC as well as the learned D.D.C confirmed the finding of consolidation Officer and rejected the appeal and the revision respectively. 13. Kiran Singh and others also filed intervention application on the ground that the respondent No.4 Atar Singh is recorded in the revenue records, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute from Atar Singh through registered sale deed dated 21.5.2001 and the applicant Nos. 13. Kiran Singh and others also filed intervention application on the ground that the respondent No.4 Atar Singh is recorded in the revenue records, the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute from Atar Singh through registered sale deed dated 21.5.2001 and the applicant Nos. 3,4 and 5 purchased the land in dispute from Atar Singh through sale deed dated 31.12.1998 and they are in actual physical possession over the land in dispute and their names have already been mutated in revenue records. Thus the interveners also claimed their rights by way of sale deeds mentioned above. These transaction were made during the pendency of the present proceedings and is lispendense to suit and therefore cannot be considered. 14. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Atar Singh. In the counter affidavit the stand which were taken in the objection before the Consolidation Officer were reiterated and it was alleged that his father deceased phullu was adopted by Amar Singh in accordance with Hindu rites on 2-5-1946 and the adoption deed has been proved by producing Labh Singh, Baljit, Bishan and Atar Singh. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that after the death of Amar Singh Atar Singh came into possession and continued to make payment of land revenue. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that Smt. Baldei is married at village Phoolgarh at a distance of about 20 kilometers from Nandpur where the land in dispute lies. Her name was recorded on 16-2-1973 not by her making application but in connivance of Kanoongo who issued P.A.-11, which fact is not in the knowledge of the answering respondent. She never remained in possession. 15. The other respondents did not file counter affidavit. 16. The petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit and alleged that the theory of adoption is forged and fictitious and the same has been set up only for the purpose of the case. At no point of time any adoption whatsoever had taken place on 2.5.1946. At no point of time after the death of Amar Singh, Phullu ever claimed himself to be the adopted son and at no point of time any land revenue was paid by him along with Bishan and Hargyan in regard to the land in question of late Amar Singh. At no point of time after the death of Amar Singh, Phullu ever claimed himself to be the adopted son and at no point of time any land revenue was paid by him along with Bishan and Hargyan in regard to the land in question of late Amar Singh. It is further alleged that Smt. Baldei who was sole heir and representative inherited the land in question and her name was recorded strictly in accordance with the law and P.A. Form-11 was issued by Supervisor Qanungo, who is competent to record the name in case of undisputed succession. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has contended that late Shobha had two sons Ganga Sahay and Amar Singh. Ganga Sahay had died in 1958 and Amar Singh died in 1971. Ganga Sahay was succeeded by three sons Phullu, Bishan and Hargyan whereas Amar Singh had a son Kala who had died during his life time and a daughter Smt. Baldei. Phullu died in 1978 and he is succeeded by Atar Singh plaintiff. It is further alleged that Smt. Baldei had two sons Gopi and Harbansh and Harbansh had four sons Mange Ram, Boby, Raju and Sanjay, who are respondent Nos. 10 to 13 in the writ petition. Ramle Singh Nagina and Chander sons of Bishan are respondent Nos. 5 to 7. So far as the pedigree is concerned, there is no factual dispute in this regard. Property of Ganga Sahay including land in question was succeeded by his three sons including his land and copy of Khautani of 1386 Fasli to 1392 Fasli has been filed before the trial court also and names of Bishan, Hargyan and Phullu sons of Ganga Sahay and name of Smt. Baldei daughter of Amar Singh are entered in the Khautani. Learned counsel also contended that after the death of Phullu son of Ganga Sahay, his son Atar Singh got the order of mutation in 1979 on the land of his father which he inherited from late Sri Ganga Sahay and these entries make it clear that Phullu was never adopted by Amar Singh. Learned counsel also contended that after the death of Phullu son of Ganga Sahay, his son Atar Singh got the order of mutation in 1979 on the land of his father which he inherited from late Sri Ganga Sahay and these entries make it clear that Phullu was never adopted by Amar Singh. Learned counsel also contended that the copy of alleged adoption deed does not bear the signature of Ganga Sahay and also does not bear the date of its execution, which makes it suspicious and there is no mention of giving and taking ceremony in the alleged deed. Thus, it is not proved that giving and taking ceremony had taken place, which is required under law. The witnesses produced by the respondent to prove the alleged adoption are interested witnesses as witness Labh Singh is the real maternal uncle (mama) of respondent No.4 and Bishan is the real uncle of Atar Singh. Learned counsel further contended that late Sri Phullu remained in the family of his father Ganga Sahay and he was never placed in the family of late Sri Amar Singh. In counter affidavit the respondent No.4 Atar Singh has not disputed this averment. 19. So far as auction proceeding against Baldei is concerned, sale certificate was issued on 13-7-93 and thereafter possession was handed over to the petitioner on 16-12-1993 and these proceedings have not been challenged before competent authority i.e. Commissioner and the same have become final. Therefore the argument raised by Sri Sudhir Kumar counsel for the intervener Kiran Singh and others that the Assistant Collector had no power to confirm the same, has no relevance since as has been mentioned above the land in dispute was purchased by them during the pendency of suit, therefore, during pending of proceeding their claim cannot be considered in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the proceeding of auction had never been challenged by Sri Atar Singh or these interveners and the same attained finality. 20. It is further argued that the respondent No.4 has utterly failed to prove the alleged adoption deed before the trial court and the burden to prove the adoption was upon the respondent No.4/plaintiff but he failed to discharge this burden. 20. It is further argued that the respondent No.4 has utterly failed to prove the alleged adoption deed before the trial court and the burden to prove the adoption was upon the respondent No.4/plaintiff but he failed to discharge this burden. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Raghavamma and another vs. A. Chenchamma and another reported in AIR 1964 supreme Court 136 and the case of Kishori Lal versus Mt. Chalti Bai reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 504 and the case of Sebati Baral (dead) by LR vs. Dungei Baral reported in AIR 2000 Orissa 158. 21. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent No.4 has contended that when Kala son of late Amar Singh had died then Amar Singh had adopted Phullu and adoption deed was proved by the witnesses in whose presence the adoption deed was prepared. Learned counsel also submitted that giving and taking ceremony of adoption was performed. After the death of Phullu his son Atar Singh has succeeded the property including land in dispute of Phullu and thus the courts below have not committed any error by relying on the adoption deed. Learned counsel also submitted that after the death of Phullu and Amar Singh, the disputed land was not devolved on Smt. Baldei hence the auction in favour of petitioners is illegal and the petitioners cannot own the said land. 22. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is to be mentioned here that the petitioners claim their ownership over the land in dispute on the basis of sale certificate dated 13-7-1993 and on the basis of possession memo dated 16-11-1993 and the plaintiff Atar Singh claims the land in question on the basis of adoption deed. 23. The alleged adoption deed is said to have been executed on 2.5.1946. 23. The alleged adoption deed is said to have been executed on 2.5.1946. Late Phullu was said to be adopted by late Amar Singh, but Phullu had never claimed himself to the son of Amar Singh and this fact finds support from the fact that Phullu had claimed his share in the land of late Ganga Sahay his natural father and had he been adopted by Late Amar Singh he would not have claimed his share in the land of his natural father Ganga Sahay after his death and came forward claiming himself to be the legal heir of late Ganga Sahay along with his two brothers Bishan and Hargyan and names of all the three persons were shown as sons of Ganga Sahay and necessary entries were made in this regard in revenue record. This fact also finds support from the documents family register, Ganna Samiti Register, Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Register and other documents. In all these documents at all point of time, during his life time, Phullu was shown as son of Ganga Sahay. 24. The another important fact to be noted is that when the Smt. Baldei had taken loan for purchase of tractor from S.B.I. Branch Raisee, Haridwar and when she did not repay the loan the property was put to auction on 31.5.1993 and Atar Singh had full knowledge of this fact, in as much as, he was one of the signatories of Z.A. Form 74. Thereafter sale deed was executed on 13.7.1993 and possession was handed over to the petitioners on 16.12.1993. Even then he has not challenged the auction proceeding before the learned Commissioner under Z.A. Rule 285-(1), who is competent authority, thus, the auction proceeding attained finality. 25. Atar Singh had filed objection on 28-5-1990 before Consolidation Officer, Roorkee U/S 9-A(2) of the Act stating therein that his father Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh and after the death of Amar Singh, Phullu had told to Lekhpal to enter his name on the land of Amar Singh. Thereafter Phullu also died and thereafter he came to know that the land of Amar Singh had been entered in the name of Smt. Baldei and request was made to enter his name in the revenue records. Thereafter Phullu also died and thereafter he came to know that the land of Amar Singh had been entered in the name of Smt. Baldei and request was made to enter his name in the revenue records. Gopi and Harbans sons of Baldei also filed their objections before Consolidation Officer and alleged that the adoption deed was never executed and Phullu was never adopted by Amar Singh and their mother Smt. Baldei was the only heir of late Amar Singh and her name was mutated in revenue records. Smt. Baldei remained in possession of the land and Phullu was never put in possession of the property. The consolidation Officer vide impugned order dated 23-2-1994, rejected the objections of sons of Baldei and directed that name of Smt. Baldei be deleted from Khata No.115 and in her place name of Atar Singh be entered on the basis of adoption deed. The learned Consolidation Officer in its order has mentioned that the disputed question before him was that after death of Kale son of Amar Singh, Smt. Ramkali widow of Kale was married to Phullu and on this condition Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh and it is to be seen whether Amar Singh had adopted Phullu or not. The learned Consolidation Officer has recorded a categorical finding that the witnesses have proved the adoption deed and Amar Singh had declared Phullu his adopted son after completing the requisite formalities of adoption. 26. The contention of petitioners/objectors before the Consolidation Officer was that the adoption deed was a forged and fabricated document and Phullu was never adopted by Amar Singh. Amar Singh had died in the year 1971 and Phullu had died in the year 1978. If Phullu was adopted son of Amar Singh he would certainly has been in possession of land of Sri Amar Singh and his name would have been entered in revenue record, but during this long span of about seven years this was not done and this exercise was done for the first time in 1990 when Atar Singh filed objection/application before Consolidation Officer claming his father Phullu to be adopted son of late Amar Singh. No satisfactory explanation has come from the side of Atar Singh in respect of above facts. No satisfactory explanation has come from the side of Atar Singh in respect of above facts. Learned counsel for the petitioner also alleged that Atar Singh in his statement in Case No. 33/95-96 Kishan and others vs. Bishan and others filed U/S 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act has given statement in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge whether his father Phullu was ever adopted by late Amar Singh or not. Copy of above statement has been filed as Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. The above statement of Atar Singh also goes against his claim that his father Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh. If Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh and he was given possession on the land of late Sri Amar Singh, firstly name of Phullu should have been recorded on the land of Amar Singh and secondly this fact would have been known to Atar Singh very well that his father was adopted son of Amar Singh and Atar Singh himself got possession of the land of his father who he had inherited from his natural father late Sri Ganga Sahay after his death. This fact creates a serious doubt on the authenticity of alleged adoption deed. The learned Consolidation Officer did not consider this aspect of the matter that father of Atar Singh had never claimed that he was the adopted son of late Sri Amar Singh. 27. Further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about the genuineness of the alleged adoption deed, is that the adoption deed was never executed and it is a fabricated document and the witnesses to proved the same are real maternal uncle Labh Singh and real uncle Bishan. Both these witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimony should not have been relied in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It was also objected before the Consolidation Officer that late Amar Singh had not signed or put his thumb impression on the alleged adoption deed. The Consolidation Officer gave a finding that the thumb impression should have been got examined by expert and this burden was upon the objectors. It was also objected before the Consolidation Officer that late Amar Singh had not signed or put his thumb impression on the alleged adoption deed. The Consolidation Officer gave a finding that the thumb impression should have been got examined by expert and this burden was upon the objectors. The learned Consolidation Officer did not consider this aspect of the matter that the witnesses of alleged adoption deed were close relatives of Atar Singh and they were highly interested witnesses and in this aspect of the matter the learned Consolidation Officer should not have relied on it without being satisfied that actually Amar Singh had put his thumb impression on it or not. Further copy of Pariwar Register relating to Ratan Singh, Bisan and Hargyan have been filed. In the copy of pariwar Register of Hargyan and Atar Singh, filed before Consolidation Officer, Atar Singh has been noted son of Phula Singh and Hargyan and Phulla Singh have been shown sons of Ganga Sahay in the family. If Phullu Singh was adopted by Amar Singh, his name should have come in the family of late Amar Singh. 28. This fact also shows that if Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh his name should have been shown in family register as adopted son of late Amar Singh and not son of late Ganga Sahay, and in the event of his adoption by late Sri Amar Singh, how Phullu could have succeeded his share from his father Ganga Sahay and his name should not have been recorded in revenue records over the property of late Ganga Sahay. 29. The another fact which was highlighted before the Consolidation Officer that Smt. Baldei had got her name mutated on the land of her father Amar Singh in connivance of Supervisor Kanoongo, but the respondent could not establish the same and it cannot be believed easily that Smt. Baldei would have got mutated her name on the land of her father by adopting wrong forum, in the absence of proof. 30. In the case of A. Raghavamma and another versus A. Chenchamma and another(supra), it has been held that all relevant documents admitted to have been in existence not placed before court by party concerned, adverse inference has to be drawn against that party. 31. In the case of Kishori Lal versus Mt. 30. In the case of A. Raghavamma and another versus A. Chenchamma and another(supra), it has been held that all relevant documents admitted to have been in existence not placed before court by party concerned, adverse inference has to be drawn against that party. 31. In the case of Kishori Lal versus Mt. Chaltibai, reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 504, it has been held that as an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving wives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative strangers or more remote relations, it is necessary that the evidence to support it should be such that it is free from all suspicions of fraud and so consistent and probable as to leave no occasion for doubting the truth. It was further held that when the family in which the adoption is claimed to have taken place is that of Marwari Aggarwals and belongs to a commercial community who maintain a complete and detailed accounts, failure to produce account in such circumstances would be a very suspicious circumstance. 32. In the case at hand the respondent No.4 claims that Phullu was adopted by Amar Singh. Admittedly Amar Singh had a daughter Smt. Baldei and by the so called deed Phullu was adopted, and Smt. Baldei was deprived of her right. Phullu never claimed that he was adopted son of late Sri Amar Singh, and Atar Singh son of Late Phullu is claiming that his father Phullu was adopted son of late Sri Amar Singh, therefore, heavy burden was upon his shoulder to discharge the same. In the another cited case of Sebati Baral 9 dead) by L.R. vs. Dungei Baral, reported in AIR 2000 Orissa 158, it has been held that allegations that physical act of giving and taking was accompanied by Data Homa ceremony, no evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff with regard to such Data Homa ceremony, failure on his part to prove giving and taking ceremony, question of succeeding to said property by plaintiff does not arise. 33. In the case at hand the respondent No.4 could not establish the adoption deed by independent and cogent evidence and by conduct also and this fact was not proved that Phullu had ever remained in the family of late Sri Amar Singh. Hence question of succeeding the land in dispute by respondent No.4 does not arise. 34. 33. In the case at hand the respondent No.4 could not establish the adoption deed by independent and cogent evidence and by conduct also and this fact was not proved that Phullu had ever remained in the family of late Sri Amar Singh. Hence question of succeeding the land in dispute by respondent No.4 does not arise. 34. On the other hand the claim of petitioners on disputed land is quite obvious that they had got the land in auction proceeding and they were put to possession of the same on the basis of sale deed executed in auction proceeding. 35. Thus, in view of discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, this court is of the considered view that the learned Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and learned D.D.C. have committed a manifest error in relying on the alleged adoption deed for the main reason that firstly it was not proved by independent and cogent evidence and secondly the alleged adoption was never acted upon in the life time either of late Amar Singh, who is said to have adopted Phullu or after the death of Amar Singh, Phullu did not acted in such a way that he was adopted son of Amar Singh, as neither he was in possession of his land nor his name was mutated in revenue record. On the other hand possession of Smt. Baldei on the land of late Amar Singh was undisputedly proved and further her name was got mutated on the land in question of her late father Sri Amar Singh in revenue record. 36. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned orders dated 4-9-1998 passed by Assistant Director of Consolidation, Annexure No.11 to the writ petition, the order dated 12.6.1995 passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Annexure No.9 to the writ petition and the order dated 23-2-1994 passed by Consolidation Officer, Annexure No.8 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. The application moved by Atar Singh Respondent No.4 before the Consolidation Officer for mutating his name on the property left by late Amar Singh, is dismissed and the application for mutation which was moved by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consolidation Act and objections filed before the Consolidation Officer are allowed. No order as to costs.