R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) In this petition directed against the order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation the only constroversy is whether he committed any error of procedure in considering evidence of witnesses which were not on record and had been burnt in a fire which took place in Collectorate of Allahabad. It is admitted that dispute between parties had come up to this Court earlier in Writ petition No. 4281 of 1972 decided on 12-2-79 and the Deputy Director was directed to decide the revision afresh, according to law and, in the light of observations made in the judgment. When the matter was taken up again the Deputy Director directed for reconstruction of documentary evidence which was done. It is not clear if similar attempt was made in respect of statements yet 'while deciding the revision the Deputy Director set aside the orders of Settlement Officer and Consolidation Officer in a case where it was claimed by petitioner that he acquired rights by adverse possession, not only on documentary but oral evidence as well by relying on recital in the orders of subordinate authorities. That this could not be done is so obvious that it hardly needs any discussion. If the record in respect of oral evidence was not or could not be reconstructed, the Deputy Director would have been well within his jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide the dispute on documentary evidence only. But it was not open to him to base his finding on evidence which was not on record by picking up recitals from what was contained in order of Settlement Officer consolidation and Consolidation Officer. Learned counsel for parties have raised lengthy arguments whether it is necessary to get the statement of witnesses reconstituted by examining them afresh and whether the parties should be permitted to lead fresh evidence but all this is beyond the scope of this Writ Petition as what is the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director and what he is required to do has already been specified in the order passed by this Court on 12th February 1979. As while complying with the direction of this Court he has committed an error of procedure, his order is being quashed. He is directed to get the record in respect of oral statement reconstituted. In case certified copies of the statements of Ram Dular and Ghazia are available he shall permit parties to file them. If certified copies of statements are not available then he shall permit petitioner to examine himself as it has been pointed out by opposite parties that Ghazia is dead. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director is quashed. He is directed to reconstitute the record in respect of oral evidence by permitting parties to file certified copies and if certified copies of statement is not available then permit Ram Dular to be examined as witness before him. He shall decide the revision thereafter in accordance with the direction issued by this Court on 12th February 1979. Parties shall bear their own costs. .;