List has been revised. Learned Counsel for the respondent is not present.

2. Heard Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the findings recorded by the Consolida tion Officer and Settlement Officer, Con solidation, which is not permissible under law. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon decisions in the case of Ram Dular v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1994 RD 290. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that the Deputy Director of Con solidation has no power to interfere in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Con solidation. From the record, it is clear that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered in the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

4. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16-11-1973, passed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation, Mainpuri is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consoli