Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Shrinath Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri N.L. Srivastava for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 01.05.2006, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 05.10.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.12.2013 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute relates to the land recorded in khatas 37, 38, 39, 40 and 132 of village Lamakol, pargana Reipura, tahsil Mau, district Chitrakoot. Basic consolidation year entries as well as objections filed by the parties are as follows: (a) In basic consolidation year, khata 37 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners). At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/2 each. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (respondents-4 to 8) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (b) In basic consolidation year, khata 38 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, the shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. (b) In basic consolidation year, khata 38 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, the shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. Another dispute was noted that names of Yadunath and Anirudh were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute, while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/5 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Share of Hanuman alias Hinwat is 1/2 and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (c) In basic consolidation year, khata 39 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga, Smt. Dhokhiya widow of Bhairav Prasad and Lallu Prasad son of Prayag Lal. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/6 each and share of Hinwat as 1/3, share of Smt. Dhokhiya and Lallu Prasad as 1/6 each. Another dispute was noted that the name of Hinwat was wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/15 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. Hanuman alias Hinwat sold his 1/3 share to Smt. Dhokhiya and Lallu Prasad and remaining 1/2 share belonged to the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (d) In basic consolidation year, khata 40 was recorded in the names of Yadunath and Anirudh sons of Hanuman (the petitioners) and Hinwat son of Ganga. At the time of partal, in CH Form-4, shares of Yadunath and Anirudh were noted as 1/4 each and share of Hinwat as 1/2. Another dispute was noted that name of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over the land in dispute while the names of Ram Gopal, Shiv Gopal, Krishna Gopal, Amar Pal and Chhatra Pal sons of Jageshwar (the respondents) should be recorded and their shares be 1/10 each. Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar sons of Ganga. After death of Rameshwar, his share was inherited by his brothers Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar. The names of the petitioners were wrongly recorded over it. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. This objection was contested by the petitioners and they claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by the respondents that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. After death of Rameshwar, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Jageshwar died unmarried as such after his death, his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. (e) In basic consolidation year, khata 132 was recorded in the name of Hanuman alias Hinwat son of Ganga (father of the petitioners). Subsequently, the respondents filed time barred objection, claiming that the land in dispute belonged to Jageshwar son of Ganga. Jageshwar was inherited by the respondents. This objection was contested by Hanuman alias Hinwat, who claimed for maintaining basic year entries. It has been stated by Hanuman alias Hinwat that Jageswar died unmarried as such after his death his share was inherited by his brother Hanuman, whose name was mutated in the revenue record by order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992. 4. It may be mentioned that village was placed under consolidation operation on 20.02.1993. At that time Consolidation Officer Banda was having jurisdiction. The objections and written statements were filed before Consolidation Officer, Banda in the year 1994. Subsequently, by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the cases were transferred to Consolidation Officer Rajapur, after hearing the parties. However the petitioners did not appear before Consolidation Officer Rajapur. The Consolidation Officer proceeded exparte against the petitioners and his father by order dated 17.10.1997. Statements of Amar Pal Singh and Phool Singh were recorded on 09.03.1998 in the absence of the petitioners and their father and these witnesses were not cross examined. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 19.07.2004, held Rameshwar was inherited by his brothers Hinwat and Jageshwar. The respondents, being sons of Jageshwar, were his heirs. However, share of the parties were wrongly determined in the operative portion of the order. The respondents filed an application for correcting the operative portion of the order according to the findings recorded in the body of judgment. Then a subsequent order dated 01.05.2006 was passed allowing the objections of the respondents. 5. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 930/719) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Chitrakoot, who by his order dated 05.10.2006 found that the case was transferred to Consolidation Officer Rajapur in the presence of the petitioners but they deliberately did not appear before Consolidation Officer Rajapur. 5. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 930/719) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Chitrakoot, who by his order dated 05.10.2006 found that the case was transferred to Consolidation Officer Rajapur in the presence of the petitioners but they deliberately did not appear before Consolidation Officer Rajapur. Before Consolidation Officer Banda, the petitioners only filed photostat copy of will dated 04.10.1978. Even original will or any other document was not filed in the appeal. On the basis of evidence on record, it is proved that the respondents were sons of Jageshwar. Endorsements made in the khatauni, on the basis of order of Tahsildar mutating the names of the petitioners but Case number has not been mentioned in it. The petitioners contested the objections on the basis of will but its due execution was not proved. On the basis of the evidence of the respondents, it is proved that they were sons of Jageshwar, who was residing in village Korra Kanak, pargana and district Fatehpur. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 24) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 12.01.2007 also held that even in revision, the petitioners had not filed any evidence and affirmed the findings of subordinate courts and dismissed the revision. 6. The petitioner filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-B No. 16661 of 2007) against the aforesaid orders. In this writ petition, the petitioner filed a copy of Pariwar Register of village Lamakol, in which it was shown that Jageshwar was born on 06.03.1932 and died on 20.08.1992. In this Pariwar Register, names of wife and children of Jageshwar were not mentioned. He also filed copy of order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992, by which name of Hanuman alias Hinwat was recorded as an heir of Jageshwar. On the basis of these documents, it has been argued that Deputy Director of Consolidation, while deciding the revision ignored the material evidence filed by the petitioners without assigning any reason. The writ petition was heard by this Court and decided by judgment dated 04.07.2012. This Court held that judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation was perverse as the material evidence of the petitioners have not been considered. The writ petition was heard by this Court and decided by judgment dated 04.07.2012. This Court held that judgment of Deputy Director of Consolidation was perverse as the material evidence of the petitioners have not been considered. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation was set aside and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for fresh decision on merit. 7. After remand, the certified copy of the order dated 04.07.2012 was filed by the petitioners along with application on 09.08.2012, on which notices were issued to the respondents fixing 06.09.2012. On 06.09.2012, lower courts record were summoned, however the case was adjourned time to time. Lower courts records were received on 05.12.2013, the parties also filed their evidence on 05.12.2013 and arguments were heard and the parties also filed their written arguments. After hearing the arguments, Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment dated 30.12.2013 held that a perusal of extract of khatauni shows that the names of the petitioners were not mutated on the basis of will dated 04.10.1978, which shows that will dated 04.10.1978 was not available and was fabricated later on. Admittedly brothers of Rameshwar were alive on the date of his death who were his heirs under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The petitioners filed their written statement through Sri Kamal Singh, Advocate and contested the matter but subsequently they deliberately absented and did not adduce any evidence as such Consolidation Officer rightly proceeded exparte against them. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondents the case was decided on merit. Admittedly Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar were sons of Ganga of village Lamakol district Banda. In oral arguments, it was admitted by the parties that Koily was their sister who was married in village Korra Kanak district Fatehpur. From the Voter List of village Korra Kanak, district Fatehpur, certificate of the Pradhan, death certificate of Jageshwar issued by Panchayat Department and report of Sub-Inspector on the complaint of the respondents, it is proved that Jageshwar son of Ganga was residing in village Korra Kanak along with his sister and the respondents were his sons and inherited the properties of Jageshwar of village Lamakol also. The Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to correct the typographical errors in his order. The Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to correct the typographical errors in his order. The orders passed in mutation proceedings by Tahsildar/ Naib Tahsildar do not operate as res-judicata in regular proceedings under the Act. On these findings the revision was again dismissed by order dated 30.12.2013. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 8. In paragraph-67 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the respondents procured various documents after close of consolidation operation on 12.01.2007 and produced before Deputy Director of Consolidation after remand of the case. Thereafter, a Supplementary Affidavit was filed on 11.02.2014 and in paragraph-12, it has been stated that letter of Gram Pradhan, Korra Kanak dated 08.10.2007, letter of erstwhile Gram Pradhan, Bandhi, Smt Chinta Devi dated 09.10.2007, letter of Gram Pradhan, Korra Kanak dated 04.05.2013, Death Certificate of Jageshwar Singh issued by Panchayat Department, Nirwachan Namawali of village Korra Kanak, extract of Family Register of village Korra Kanak, Report of Sub-Inspector, P.S. Lalauli, district Fatehpur dated 23.09.2013 were filed only after arguments in the revision was over and judgment was reserved on 05.12.2013, behind the back of the petitioners and were never admitted in evidence. In paragraph-15, it has been stated that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners to rebut the documents of the respondents. Further it has been stated that these documents were not proved according to the provisions of Section 61 of Evidence Act and were irrelevant and no reliance could be placed on it. 9. The respondents filed a Counter Affidavit to the Supplementary Affidavit, in which it has been stated that on 05.12.2013, before arguments, the petitioners filed 4 documents along with List of Documents and the respondents filed 8 documents along with List of Documents which were taken on record by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Order taking the documents of both the parties are noted by Deputy Director of Consolidation, in his own hand writing and were signed and dated on the List of Documents itself, certified copies of List of Documents have been attached along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit and thereafter arguments were heard. In reply to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that neither of the parties filed any documents on 05.12.2013. In reply to the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that neither of the parties filed any documents on 05.12.2013. It was only after arguments were over and judgment was reserved, when Deputy Director of Consolidation was about to rise from the Court on 05.12.2013, he asked the counsel for the petitioners to provide him photostat copies of extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, order of Naib Tahsildar Rajpur and Will dated 04.10.1978, as it would be convenient for him to decide the case hence the counsel for the petitioners submitted aforesaid documents on 05.12.2013. The documents filed by the petitioners were not new documents but were already on record. The respondents filed their documentary evidence behind the back of the petitioners. Additional evidence cannot be admitted to fill up the lacuna of the evidence. The documentary evidence adduced by the respondents were never admitted in evidence nor it could be admitted in evidence. The petitioners were not given opportunity to give rebuttal to the documentary evidence filed by respondents. Deputy Director has illegally considered these documents in his judgments. 10. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that additional evidence cannot be adduced to fill up the lacuna of the evidence. If any additional evidence is admitted by Deputy Director of Consolidation, he was required to give opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioners of the evidence admitted by him. The respondents filed documentary evidence behind the back of the petitioners, after the arguments was over and judgment was reserved. No reliance could be placed on the documents allegedly filed on 05.12.2013. The documentary evidence of the petitioners i.e. extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, order of Naib Tahsildar dated 14.12.1992 and copy of the will dated 04.10.1978 were already on record. When, Deputy Director of Consolidation was about to rise from the Court on 05.12.2013, he asked the counsel for the petitioners to provide him photostat copies of extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, order of Naib Tahsildar Rajpur and Will dated 04.10.1978, as it would be convenient for him to decide the case hence the counsel for the petitioners again supplied aforesaid documents on 05.12.2013. Thus documents adduced by the petitioners remained un-rebutted and were not liable to be ignored. From the extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, it is proved that Jageshwar died unmarried. Thus documents adduced by the petitioners remained un-rebutted and were not liable to be ignored. From the extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, it is proved that Jageshwar died unmarried. Hanuman alias Hinwat being his real brother inherited his share in the land in dispute. The petitioners inherited the share of Rameshwar on the basis of Will dated 04.10.1978 and their names were mutated in the revenue record by order dated 26.10.1979. On the other hand, it is not proved that the respondents were sons of Jageshwar. The orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in Sheo Pujan Vs. DDC and others, 1993 RD 73, in which it has been held that power to admit additional evidence at appellate or revisional stage has to be exercised with care and caution according to the principles under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., Girja Shankar Vs. DDC and others, 1996 (87) RD 465 , in which it has been held that when additional evidence is taken on record, opportunity of rebuttal is required to be given to the other side, Ram Nath Vs. DDC and others, 1997 (98) RD 94 in which it has been held that principles contained under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for admitting additional evidence has to be followed by Deputy Director of Consolidation while admitting additional evidence in revision and judgment of Supreme Court in Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Surender Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries) and others, (2010) 8 SCC 423 , in which it has been held that admissibility of a document in evidence has to be decided at the stage of admission itself. 11. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record. Basic year entries were in favour of the petitioners. Burden was upon the respondents to prove that they were sons of Jageshwar and inherited his share. It is admitted that Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar were sons of Ganga. It is also admitted that Rameshwar died in the year 1979, Jageshwar died on 20.08.1992. The petitioners claimed that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour and after his death, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. It is admitted that Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar were sons of Ganga. It is also admitted that Rameshwar died in the year 1979, Jageshwar died on 20.08.1992. The petitioners claimed that Rameshwar executed a will dated 04.10.1978 in their favour and after his death, their names were mutated by Tahsildar by order dated 26.10.1979. Even if, claim of the the petitioners on the basis of Will dated 04.10.1978 executed by Rameshwar in their favour is not established, the respondents will not get any benefit so long as it is not proved by them that they were sons of Jageshwar as in the absence of it the property will go to Hinwat under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The will requires to be compulsorily attested under Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 as such its due execution is required to be proved by at least one attesting witness, according to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as held by Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh Vs. Shamsher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1766 . The petitioners did not examine any witness to prove due execution of the Will dated 04.10.1978 nor filed copy of order of mutation dated 26.10.1979. The consolidation authorities concurrently found that from the order dated 26.10.1979 which was incorporated in khatauni, it was proved that this order was not passed on the basis of will as such inference was drawn that the will was subsequently fabricated and is a forged will. In any case, due execution of the Will dated 04.10.1978 was not proved as such no reliance could be placed on it. As such after death of Rameshwar, his two brothers inherited his share in the property in dispute. 12. Now the question arise as to whether the respondents were sons of Jageshwar. The respondents claimed that Koily was sister of Rameshwar, Hanuman alias Hinwat and Jageshwar, who was married in village Korra Kanak, district Fatehpur. This fact was admitted during arguments before Deputy Director of Consolidation, as noted by him in his judgment. According to the respondents, Koily became widow in her early age as such Jageshwar shifted to village Korra Kanak to help his sister in his childhood. This fact was admitted during arguments before Deputy Director of Consolidation, as noted by him in his judgment. According to the respondents, Koily became widow in her early age as such Jageshwar shifted to village Korra Kanak to help his sister in his childhood. As Jageshwar began to reside at village Korra Kanak with his sister Koily, he was married there and his children were born at village Korra Kanak and were residing there. Due to this reason, names of wife and children of Jageshwar could not be recorded in the Pariwar Register of village Lamakol. The respondents proved their case on the basis of oral evidence before Consolidation Officer by examining Amar Pal Singh and Phool Singh witnesses. Statement of Amar Pal Singh is admissible in evidence under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, relying upon the statements of the witnesses of the respondents, recorded findings that the respondents were sons of Jageshwar. Finding of fact in this respect was based upon assessment of evidence on record. Copy of the extract of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioners in revision shows that Jageshwar was son of Ganga and was born on 06.03.1932 and died on 20.08.1992. As it was admitted that Koily daughter of Ganga was married in village Korra Kanak and such this Pariwar Register corroborates the evidence of the respondents that Koily had became widow during her early age and Jageshwar had shifted to village Korra Kanak to help his sister from his childhood. Thus the evidence adduced by the petitioners did not disprove the case of the respondents rather it corroborated up to some extent. Findings of facts recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect upon appreciation of the evidence on record cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Supreme Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1 , held that though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor re-appreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law. 13. Apart from photostat copy of the will dated 04.10.1978 and khataunies of the land in dispute no other evidence was filed by the petitioners before Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation as noted in their judgments and has not been challenged in the memorandum of revision filed by the petitioners (Annexure-20) to the writ petition. For the first time, the petitioners, in paragraph-32 of Writ B No. 16661 of 2007, has stated that they had filed certified copies of extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, true copy of the order dated 14.12.1992 passed by Naib Tahsildar Rajapur but neither respondent-1 nor respondent-2 considered these documents. In the memorandum of the revision no such ground was raised. The petitioners could not produce copy of any application for filing additional evidence either in appeal or in revision nor could file copy of the order admitting these documents as additional evidence either in this writ petition or in previous writ petition although serious controversy in this respect is being raised by the petitioners, in this writ petition. The allegation that these documents were filed earlier was false. 14. As stated above, in paragraph-67 of the writ petition, the petitioners stated that the respondents procured various documents after close of consolidation operation on 12.01.2007 and produced before Deputy Director of Consolidation after remand of the case. Thereafter, in Supplementary Affidavit it has been stated that the respondents filed various documents only after arguments in the revision was over and judgment was reserved on 05.12.2013, behind the back of the petitioners and these documents were never admitted in evidence nor opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners to rebut the documents of the respondents. Thereafter, in Supplementary Affidavit it has been stated that the respondents filed various documents only after arguments in the revision was over and judgment was reserved on 05.12.2013, behind the back of the petitioners and these documents were never admitted in evidence nor opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners to rebut the documents of the respondents. The respondents filed a Counter Affidavit to the Supplementary Affidavit, in which it has been stated that on 05.12.2013, before arguments, the petitioners filed 4 documents along with List of Documents and the respondents filed 8 documents along with List of Documents which were taken on record by the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Order taking the documents of both the parties are noted by Deputy Director of Consolidation, in his own hand writing and were signed and dated on the List of Documents itself, certified copies of List of Documents have been attached along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit and thereafter arguments were heard. Then the petitioners in their Rejoinder Affidavit came with another theory that after arguments were over and judgment was reserved, when Deputy Director of Consolidation was about to rise from the Court on 05.12.2013, he asked the counsel for the petitioners to provide him photostat copies of extract of Family Register of village Lamakol, order of Naib Tahsildar Rajpur and Will dated 04.10.1978, as it would be convenient for him to decide the case, hence the counsel for the petitioners submitted aforesaid documents on 05.12.2013. The documents filed by the petitioners were not new documents but were already on record. Thus it is apparent that the petitioners took different stands to justify their false allegations that the documents of the respondents were filed after arguments behind the back of the petitioners. When from the certified copy of the List of Documents, it has been proved that documents were filed by both the parties on 05.12.2013, which were taken on record before the start of arguments. Then the petitioners gave another false excuse that when Deputy Director of Consolidation was about to rise from the Court on 05.12.2013, he asked the counsel for the petitioners to provide him photostat copies of the documents, which were supplied by them. Such explanation was not given in Supplementary Affidavit, where they had concealed these facts. Then the petitioners gave another false excuse that when Deputy Director of Consolidation was about to rise from the Court on 05.12.2013, he asked the counsel for the petitioners to provide him photostat copies of the documents, which were supplied by them. Such explanation was not given in Supplementary Affidavit, where they had concealed these facts. This Court has reason to believe that the statements of the respondents that both the parties filed their documentary evidence before Deputy Director of Consolidation before arguments on 05.12.2013, which were admitted and thereafter arguments were heard is correct, in view of paragraph-67 of the writ petition. The petitioners never demanded any opportunity to file rebuttal before Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the parties filed their additional evidence in revision as such no one can blame that chance of rebuttal was not provided as at that time none of them made any request for rebuttal. 15. So far as the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners regarding jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Education for admitting additional evidence in revision is concerned, Full Bench of this Court in Bijai Narain Vs. State of U.P., AIR 1970 All 241 (FB) held that Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been applied to the proceedings under the Act. Rule 26 (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 provides that Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on point of dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary and decide the objection. Under Section 48 (1) of the Act, requires to give opportunity of hearing to the parties. It has been well settled that while decide the revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation has very wide power to decide issue relating to fact also as held by Supreme Court in Sheo Nand Vs. DDC and others, AIR 2000 SC 1141 and Gulzar Singh Vs. DDC and others, (2009) 12 SCC 590 . By virtue of Section 44-A of the Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Rule 26 (2) and admit any additional evidence in revision as held by Division Bench in Bihari Vs. State of U.P. 1973 RD 342 (DB). It has been consistently held by this Court that consolidation is a State imposed litigation upon illiterate and rustic villagers. State of U.P. 1973 RD 342 (DB). It has been consistently held by this Court that consolidation is a State imposed litigation upon illiterate and rustic villagers. The consolidation is final settlement and right of the tenure holders once decided in the proceeding under the Act is final between the parties for ever as such all the consolidation authorities are clothe under the Act, with jurisdiction to reassess the evidence on record and decide all the issue of fact to prevent miscarriage of justice as it is ultimate duty of the consolidation authorities to revise and prepare correct revenue record. Thus Deputy Director of Consolidation has power to take additional evidence of the parties in revision and technicalities imposed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be ipso facto applied. 16. The documents filed by the respondents in revision contained public documents i.e. extract of Voter List of village Korra Kanak, extract of Family Register of village Korra Kanak, extract of death certificate of Jageshwar. Certified copies of the public documents are admissible in evidence under Section 76 and carry presumption of the facts mentioned in it under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As stated above, before Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioners did not demand time for rebuttal. Before this Court, the petitioners have not produced any document to contradict these documents. As such these documents were rightly relied upon by Deputy Director of Consolidation. In any case, finding of fact that the respondents were sons of Jageshwar was also proved by oral evidence of the respondents. No interference is required by this Court. So far as the orders passed in mutation proceedings are concerned it do not operate as res-judicata and have been rightly ignored. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, orders of consolidation authorities do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. ______________