JUDGMENT Manish Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Anil Kumar Mauray, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.07.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional order dated 29.09.1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner was entered in the Khasra from 1367 fasli to 1375 fasli i.e. from the year 1960 to 1968 and on the basis of which the appellate order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner was in the Khatauni prepared prior to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into existence and even at the time of basic year fasli when the village had come under the consolidation proceedings. 5. It is further submitted that the plot alleged to be in possession of the respondent from 1368 fasli to 1370 fasli and 1371 fasli was not accepted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in its order. It is further submitted that the land alleged to be redeemed in the year 1947, in actual, the same was never redeemed, hence the claim of the respondent Nos. 3 to 9 on the basis of the same cannot be sustained. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 has submitted that the plot nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 and 101 were mortgaged by their ancestors to Sri. Lakshman Sahu and subsequently a redemption was made in the year 1947 and plots were redeemed. In pursuance of the redemption, the name of ancestors of the respondents were entered in the Khatauni and the other revenue record relating to Plot Nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 except the plot no.101 by mistake of the Lekhpal, who had not entered the name. 7. It is further submitted that at the time of consolidation proceedings the respondents had filed an objection under Section 9(A)2 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1953') for expunging the name of Sursati by making entry in favour of respondents against the Plot No.101, which has been sub-divided in Plot No.101/1 and 101/2. 8. 8. It is further submitted that name of Sursati had come in the records for the limited period of 8 years since 1960 to 1968, in the Khasra she was alleged to be in possession of the land and except that neither Sursati had produced any documentary evidence how she was claiming her name to be entered in the records nor her name was ever entered in the Khatauni which decides the title over the land. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the position which emerges out is that the plots nos. 205, 206, 227, 182, 412 and 101 were mortgaged by Late Chandrabali Singh, the ancestor of the respondents in the year 1944 in favour of Sri. Lakshman Sahu and thereafter it was redeemed in the year 1947. The names of the successors of the respondents were entered in the revenue records as far as Plot Nos.205, 206, 227, 182 and 412 are concerned, but due to some mistake by the Lekhpal the name of the ancestors of the respondents were not entered with regard to the plot no.101 and at the time of consolidation proceedings they had come to know about the same that after expunging the name of Lakshman Sahu the name of the petitioner Smt. Sursati was entered in the Khasra from 1367 fasli to 1375 fasli i.e. since 1960 to 1968. 10. On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner how the name of the petitioner has been entered in the Khasra, whether she was related to Lakshman Sahu or any of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no knowledge about the same. The second query which was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that where are the documents i.e. Khataunies, from which he has argued that the name of petitioner was in the Khatauni prior to the Act, 1950 came into existence and even in the Basic Year Khatauni, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any Khatauni in support of his submission rather has also failed to show any such findings in any of the orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. 11. 11. The redemption as mentioned in the order of the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional Court cannot be said that it was never redeemed as per submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason on the basis of the redemption in the year 1947 in other five plots out of six plots the name of the ancestors of the respondents were entered. The mistake of the authorities concerned would not deprive any person from their property as it had happened in the present case by passing the appellate order. 12. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision was filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are alleged to be the owner of Plot Nos.101/2, but decided the rights of the petitioner with regard to the Plot No.101/1 against which no revision was filed, which the revisional court could not decide suo moto and in support of his submission he has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Des Raj v. Union of India reported in (2004) 7 SCC 753 . The said judgement is not applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that the said judgement is on the issue where the land was acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 13. On the other hand learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that under Section 48 of the Act, 1950 the Deputy Director of Consolidation is empowered either Suo Moto or his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act, and in support of his submission he has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Nand and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 103 , the relevant paras i.e. Para Nos.20, 21 and 22 are quoted hereinbelow : "20. The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly. 21. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law. 22. If, therefore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other villages, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings and disposing of the revision in the manner in which he has done." 14. From perusal of the aforesaid judgement and the admitted facts to the petitioner that she was claiming her rights on both the plots, the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding the revision is empowered to look into the whole of the dispute. 15. In view of the facts, reasons and discussion made hereinabove, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 16.07.1977 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Revisional order dated 29.09.1981 and does not call for any interference. 16. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.