JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.B. Tripathi, Advocate, for petitioners, Sri Vishnu Dutt Ojha, Advocate, appearing for legal heirs of respondents 3 and 5 and perused the record. Sri Ved Byas Mishra, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of legal heirs of respondent No. 4 and adopted arguments advanced by Sri Vishnu Dutt Ojha, Advocate. 2. Petitioners, Jangal Singh, Sheo Prasad and Kali Charan (now all deceased and substituted by legal heirs), have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution assailing the order dated 28.10.1974 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”) allowing Revision No. 14/282 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”) and setting aside order of Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as “ASOC”) dated 14.8.1972, has restored order dated 1.2.1972 passed by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as “CO”). 3. The dispute relates to Plots No. 526, 818, 819 and 1482 of Khata No. 15 and Plot No. 1115 of Khata No. 23. 4. The aforesaid land was recorded in basic year in the name of petitioners as Bhumidhar. Respondents 3 to 5, i.e. Randhir Singh, Badri Mishra and Harihar Singh filed objections before CO stating that they were Zamindar in Khewat to which plots in dispute pertain. One Ram Gulam was tenant in the plots in dispute. He died in 1940. His daughter Km. Koshili then was recorded as occupancy tenant in revenue record of 1359 Fasali. She married on 6.5.1952 to a person of another village as such her rights extinguished and opposite parties being ex-zamindar took over possession and became Khudkasht holder. They attained rights of bhumidhar under Section 18 (1)(a) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”). Respondents then requested CO to expunge names of petitioners in basic year entry. 5. Petitioners contested the matter stating that Ram Gulam died in 1940 whereupon his daughter Km. Koshili was recorded as occupancy tenant as provided under Section 35 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1939”) and her name was recorded in 1359 fasali revenue record. She deposited ten times revenue on 20.5.1950 for declaration under Section 6 of United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1949”). Koshili was recorded as occupancy tenant as provided under Section 35 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1939”) and her name was recorded in 1359 fasali revenue record. She deposited ten times revenue on 20.5.1950 for declaration under Section 6 of United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1949”). Declaration was accordingly made in 1950. After enactment of Act, 1950, she became Bhumidhar on the date of deposit in view of Section 18(2) of Act, 1950. She executed a sale-deed on 21.7.1954 in favour of petitioners and thereupon names of petitioners were recorded as Bhumidhar. It is said that for this reason, her name was rightly mentioned in the basic year entry. 6. It appears that a suit, i.e., Original Suit No. 4044 of 1954 was filed by Harihar Singh and others against present petitioners, i.e., Kali Charan and two others. Therein sale-deed dated 21.7.1954 was challenged and a decree for cancellation thereof was prayed. Plaintiffs also sought a decree of delivery of possession as an alternative relief. The suit was filed vide plaint dated 7.9.1954. Plaint case was that plaintiffs and defendants 5 to 17 were Zamindar in Khewat to which the plot in suit pertained. Ram Gulam was tenant of plot in suit. He died in 1940 and after his death, his daughter Smt. Koshili came in possession. She was married in 1952 and abandoned the plots. Her tenancy rights got extinguished. Plaintiffs and other co-shares entered into possession and on the enforcement of Act, 1950 they became Zamindar. Due to existing wrong entries in the basic year revenue record, defendants 1 to 3, i.e., petitioners in this writ petition got a sale-deed executed from Smt. Koshili on 21.7.1954 though she had no right, interest or authority to execute the same. 7. Defendants (present petitioners) contested the suit taking the same plea as has been taken before Revenue Courts below and in this writ petition. 8. The suit was decided vide judgment and decree dated 9.7.1957 by Sri G.D. Chaturvedi -II, Additional Munsif, Deoria and he held that Smt. Koshil married in 1952, hence lost her rights in father’s land and land in question stood restored to plaintiffs. Smt. Koshili, thus, has no right to execute sale-deed in 1954 and consequently suit was decreed and sale-deed dated 21.7.1954 was declared illegal and consequently cancelled. Smt. Koshili, thus, has no right to execute sale-deed in 1954 and consequently suit was decreed and sale-deed dated 21.7.1954 was declared illegal and consequently cancelled. Learned Munsif also declared plaintiffs as Bhumidhar and in possession over suit land. 9. Defendants Kali Charan Koeri and others (Petitioners in the present writ petition) filed Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1956. It came to be decided by Sri S.S.Bose, Civil Judge, Deoria. He framed following two points for determination: “1. Whether Kaushali defendant No. 4 was the bhumidhar of the plots in suit and as such was entitled to execute the sale-deed in question? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were bhumidhars of the plots in suit?” 10. Appellate Court found that Trial Court decided the matter in the light of a compromise between Smt. Koshili and plaintiffs on 4.8.1955, i.e. after execution of sale-deed. The said compromise was not binding on defendants 1 to 3 since defendant 4, i.e., Smt. Koshili lost her rights in the suit property after execution of sale-deed and any admission or compromise subsequent to the sale-deed having adverse effect upon rights of defendants 1 to 3 was not binding on them and Trial Court committed grave error in relying on the said compromise. Relying on Section 18 of Indian Evidence Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”), Appellate Court held that admission was not made during subsistence of interest in disputed property by defendant 4, Smt. Koshili, hence that admission cannot be said to be a valid admission binding on persons who have acquired interest before, in property in dispute. It also found that plaintiffs have not stated anywhere that plots in suit have been cultivated by them before enforcement of Act, 1950 and that being so they cannot be said to be Khudkasht of disputed land since cultivation is essence of Khudkasth rights. Lastly it said that Revenue entries of 1359 fasali is presumed to be correct, unless shown otherwise, and in absence of anything to show otherwise, it was not liable to be altered. Ultimately, it answered issue-1 in affirmative, i.e., in favour of appellants and issue-2 in negative, i.e. against the plaintiffs-respondents, hence allowed appeal vide judgment dated 5.5.1959, set aside judgment of Trial Court dated 9.7.1957 and dismissed the suit with cost to defendants 1 to 3. 11. Ultimately, it answered issue-1 in affirmative, i.e., in favour of appellants and issue-2 in negative, i.e. against the plaintiffs-respondents, hence allowed appeal vide judgment dated 5.5.1959, set aside judgment of Trial Court dated 9.7.1957 and dismissed the suit with cost to defendants 1 to 3. 11. It is said that judgment of Civil Judge was challenged before this Court by filing Second Appeal but nothing has been brought on record to show that said judgment of Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) has been reversed. 12. Thereafter again, when consolidation operations commenced in Village in question, similar issue was raised by respondents 3 to 5 before CO. CO held that the proceedings in Civil Court abated due to commencement of consolidation proceedings. He further held that due to marriage of Smt. Koshili in 1952, she lost her rights in property in dispute and further consideration in sale-deed was not adequate and ten times deposit made by Smt. Koshili in 1950 was not valid since she was minor at that time. Consequently, he allowed objections vide order dated 1.2.1972 and directed expunction of names of petitioners in revenue record and directed to make entry of names of defendants 3 to 5. Petitioners, then preferred Appeal No. 1342 before ASOC who allowed the appeal and reversed order of CO but in the revision, DDC has restored order of CO. Hence, this writ petition. 13. Counsel for petitioners submitted that DDC has proceeded on certain assumptions and has examined the matter like an appeal, though it was not open to it to sit in appeal since he was exercising only revisional jurisdiction. He further said that DDC has proceeded on certain conjectures and surmises observing that Smt. Koshili failed to prove that she obtained possession after marriage and that she was minor when she deposited ten times Lagan, hence would not acquire any right. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents sought to support impugned order for the reasons stated therein. 15. CO and DDC both have proceeded to decide the matter in favour of respondents 3, 4 and 5 on the basis of following observations: (i) Smt. Koshili was minor in 1950 when she deposited ten times lagan, hence did not get any right due to said deposit after enforcement of Act, 1950. 15. CO and DDC both have proceeded to decide the matter in favour of respondents 3, 4 and 5 on the basis of following observations: (i) Smt. Koshili was minor in 1950 when she deposited ten times lagan, hence did not get any right due to said deposit after enforcement of Act, 1950. (ii) She left the village after marriage in 1952 and has not placed anything to show that land continued to be cultivated by her or through any agent or servant etc. (iii) Nothing could be shown that respondents 3 to 5 did not enter into possession of disputed land after marriage of Smt. Koshili from 6.5.1952 till date of execution of sale-deed. 16. Having gone through the record, I find that there is nothing to show that Smt. Koshili was minor in 1950. Neither her date of birth has been stated in any of the documents or in the pleadings before revenue authorities nor there is otherwise any material on record to show that she was minor in 1950. When enquired from learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 as to how CO and DDC could record a finding that Smt. Koshili was minor in 1950, when she deposited ten times lagan, he could place nothing before this Court to support the aforesaid finding. Apparently, observations and findings of CO as well as DDC in this regard are based on no material and no evidence, hence cannot sustain. 17. Secondly, factum of marriage of Smt. Koshili is admitted. It is also admitted that she married a person residing in another village, but there is nothing on record to show that she actually left the village and stopped cultivation on the land in question. DDC has relied on admission of Smt. Koshili dated 4.8.1955 in the alleged compromise that she left village after marriage and has ignored to consider the fact that the said admission was inadmissible for the reason that on the said date, Koshili having executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioners, lost all the interest in disputed property, and, therefore, aforesaid statement made by her after execution of sale-deed could not have been taken as an admission which could have been relied against petitioners as binding on them. No material has been placed on record to show that Koshili actually left village after marriage and in this regard, findings if the aforesaid admission is excluded, is based on no evidence at all. 18. Thirdly, once deposit of ten times lagan in 1950 and conferment of right upon Koshili on enforcement of Act, 1950 is taken to be correct, question of being such rights extinguished in 1952 on her marriage would not arise. The basic year entry recorded in revenue record ought not to have been discarded or held incorrect unless there are adequate evidence to show otherwise. The rights acquired by Smt. Koshili in 1950 are absolute and neither a life interest nor otherwise liable to forfeited or abandonment on marriage or re-marriage. In taking above view, I am fortified by Apex Court’s decision in Ramji Dixit v. Bhirgunath, AIR 1968 SC 1058 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raghuraji and another v. Board of Revenue, 1962 ALJ 596. 19. I also find that the finding of fact recorded by ASOC were on the basis of appreciation of evidence and in the absence of any perversity or misreading of evidence etc., DDC, in proceeding to consider the matter as if it is sitting in appeal and assessing evidence to record a different finding of fact, has committed manifest error in exercising revisional jurisdiction since it was not permissible. In this regard, I am fortified by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Udit v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others, 2016 All CJ 14, wherein scope of scrutiny by DDC in revision has been discussed in detail 20. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, I have no manner of doubt that judgment and order of DDC questioned in this writ petition is unsustainable and has to be set aside. 21. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 28.10.1974 passed by DDC is hereby set aside and judgment dated 14.8.1972 passed by ASOC is hereby restored.