Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 29.7.1976 passed by Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “CO”) and 30.5.1977 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (hereinafter referred to as the “DDC”).

2. Dispute relates to plots No. 103/2 (area 0.15), 158 (area .18), 163 (area .11), 173 (area-12) and 186 (area -12), situate in Village Piyari, Pargana Katehar, District Varanasi.

3. Petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1953”) claiming co-tenancy rights in disputed plots. They claim half share in aforesaid plots. It is said that Dukkhi-respondent No. 4 (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) in his statement under Section 9A(2) of Act, 1953 stated that Shiv Kumar and Ram Kumar were also ancestors of parties and on their death plots held by them were inherited both by Dhautal and Mannu. He also admitted that Mannu was eldest among the sons of Dhautal.

4. CO, however, vide order dated 29.7.1976 rejected petitioners’ objection with respect to plots in dispute. Aggrieved thereto petitioners filed appeal under Section 11(1) of Act, 1953 before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as the “SOC”). Appeal was allowed and petitioners were declared co-tenure holders in disputed plots. Description of disputed plots were mentioned as Khata No. 141, Gata No. 152 (area 13 dismal), 155 (area 27 dismal), 171/2 (area -15 dismal), 171 (area -14 dismal), 183 (area 24 dismal), 99 (area 25 dismal) and 103/1 (area -14 dismal).

5. Respondent No. 3 and others, sons of Mannu filed Revision No. 2451 under Section 48 of Act, 1953 before DDC, who has allowed revision and set aside SOC’s order dated 18.1.1977 in respect of Khata No. 141 and restored the order of CO.

6. Learned counsel for revisionist contended that DDC has appreciated entire facts as if it was considering appeal and, therefore, has erred in law inasmuch as revisional power is not extended to appreciate findings of fact recorded by SOC. He placed reliance on Apex Court’s decision in Ram Dular v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others, 1994 RD 290 and Gaya Din and others v. Hanuman Prasad and others, AIR 2001 SC 386 and a Single Judge decision of this Court in Ram Nath v. D.D.C. and others, 1997(88) RD 94. He submitted that Ram Kumar and Shiv Kumar were ancestors of parties and entire land held by them was ancestral property. It was also admitted by Dukkhi in his statement under Section 9A of Act, 1953. CO and DDC committed manifest error in ignoring this aspect of the matter and, therefore, impugned judgment is perverse and liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the contrary, submitted that SOC has not appreciated matter correctly and DDC has examined entire thins in detail and that is how has restored order of CO. These are findings of fact and, therefore, this Court may not interfere with with the order passed by DDC.

8. The family tree shown by petitioners before CO was as under:

9. However, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 did not accept aforesaid family tree and according to them Mannu was the only son of Dhautal and respondents are sons of Mannu. Petitioners are not family members of respondents. The family tree relied by respondents before CO was as u