The Deputy Director of Consolidation could set aside findings of fact if they were found to be illegal, irregular, improper, or incorrect, but could not substitute his own findings.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8. 12. 1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law has also been made.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that in the basic year, khata No. 158 was recorded in the name of the petitioner, Jangi Lal. On receipt of C. H. Form no. 5, objection was filed by Miru, respondent No. 4, claiming that he was the co-tenure holder to the extent of 1/2 share in the said Khata on the basis of pedigree which is given below : deena reepubhuwar smt. Murli (daughter) Meeru (respondent No. 4)Masuriadeen (Son)Jangi Lal (Petitioner)

( 3 ) IT was pleaded by respondent No. 4 that he was the son of the brother of petitioner and he was entitled to 1/2 share, therefore, the basic year entry was liable to be expunged and the names of contesting respondent No. 4 as well as Jangi Lal, petitioner were liable to be recorded showing their shares as 1/2 each in the Khata in dispute. Petitioner denied the claim of respondent No. 4 and supported the validity of basic year entry. Pleading that father of the petitioner purchased 1/2 share from the father of respondent No. 4 long back in 1916 and since then he was in exclusive possession of the land in dispute and that basic year entry was quite legal and valid. It may, however, be noted that correctness of above noted pedigree was not disputed or denied in the objection nor any sale deed was produced by the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE parties in support of their cases produced evidence, oral and documentary. The consolidation Officer after going through the evidence on the record, recorded findings cursorily in favour of the petitioner on the relevant issues and dismissed the objection of the contesting respondent No. 4 by his judgment and order dated 16. 7. 1971. Challenging the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Consolidation Officer, an appeal was filed by the contesting respondent before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 15. 9. 1971. Thereafter the contesting respondent filed a revision before the deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after re-appraisal of evidence, set aside the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the relevant issues and allowed the revision and the objection of contesting respondent by his judgment and order dated 18. 12. 1972. Hence, the present petition.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Deputy Director of consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the revision outright. According to him, in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the act) the Deputy Director of Consolidation could interfere with the findings of fact, if they were found to be illegal, irregular, improper or incorrect but he had no jurisdiction to substitute his own findings in place of the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Therefore, according to him, after setting aside the said findings and allowing the revision he had to remand the case back for decision afresh to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in support of his submission he has referred to and relied upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Karan shukla v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur and others, 2001 (92)RD 695 and Bechna v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2001 (92) RD 693. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of impugned order and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concluded by t