Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has arisen from consolidation proceedings and the petitioner has assailed order dated 3.2.1983 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby it has allowed Revision No. 1115 under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1948”) and declared respondent No. 2 as Bhumidhar of certain plots and co-tenure holder of some other plots.

2. The dispute relates to agricultural plot No. 30/2, 37/1, 43/1, 43/2 and 87 and grove plots No. 163 and 227/6 situated in village Dulhapur, Pargana and Tehsil Tanda., District Faizabad. It is said that agricultural plot No. 43/1 was recorded in the name of petitioners No. 1 and 2, Shambhoo and Asharam in the basic year and other agricultural plots No. 30/2, 37/1, 43/2 and 87 were recorded in the name of one Mst. Kamla Devi in the basic year. A mutation entry was also recorded in the basic year, expunging Kamla Devi and recording names of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Grove plots No. 163 and 227/6 were recorded in the name of Kamla Devi, Vachaspati, Thakur Prasad, Raja Ram, and Shiv Kumar. Here also, mutation entry was recorded, expunging name of Kamla Devi and entering names of petitioner No. 6 Mohd. Muslim and Ram Dayal, father of petitioner No. 3, 4 and 5. During consolidation proceedings, opposite party No. 2, setting up a pedigree as under, filed objection claiming her rights in respect of the aforesaid agricultural and grove land.

Ganga

Bhawani Bhikh Mahavir

Jai Ram=Dhanpatti Sheo Ram

Basudeo=Mst. Jairaji Triloki Hanuman Ayodhya

x x

Radhika Nath Vachaspati

=Kamla Devi

3. Respondent No. 2 claimed that disputed land is ancestral and it was Sir and Khudkasht, which subsequently became Bhumdhari. Entry of the names of Vachaspati and Kamla Devi was fictitious and sale-deed executed by them was of no avail. She also claimed her right, in the alternative, on the ground of adverse possession over disputed plot in dispute. Petitioners claimed their right on the basis of purchases made by them through various sale-deeds from recorded tenure holders. Documents placed before Consolidation Officer included registered agreement dated 28.9.1930, executed by respondent No. 2, relinquishing her rights in all holdings in favour of Hanuman. She also filed original suit No. 39 of 1939 in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, against Hanuman. vide compromise decree, the suit was decided on 21.12.1940 wherein respondent No. 2 relinquished her claim in entire holding subject to the condition that she would be given Rs. 10/- per month as maintenance. Another suit No. 268 of 1949 was filed by respondent No. 2 in the Court of Munsif, in which she claimed that the amount of maintenance was raised from Rs. 10/- to Rs. 25/- though she claimed it as Rs. 50/- per month. Respondent No. 2, however, did not appear in witness box. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 11.11.1970 rejected objection filed by respondent No. 2, whereagainst she preferred appeals, which were also dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Faizabad vide order dated 12.7.1979. Aggrieved thereto, respondent No. 2 preferred revision, which has been allowed by means of impugned order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”) and therein respondent No. 2 has been declared Bhumidhar of plot No. 30/2, 37/1, 43/1, 43/2 and 87. She has been declared co-tenure holder in grove land No. 163 and 227.

4. Sri A.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 having relinquished her rights in the entire land, firstly, by registered agreement dated 28.9.1930 and thereafter, in the two suits, could not have claimed rights otherwise, in the same land, subsequently. The revisional authority in ignoring this aspect has committed jurisdictional error. He further contended that reliance placed by DDC on the written stateme