- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 14-1-80 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. Mohd. Outran filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming that Nizamuddin had ob tained Bhumidhari Sanad in the year 1950 in his favour and also in the name of Mohd. Gurfan, objector, but later on the found that the name of Mohd. Gurfan was not shown as co- tenure holder. Nizamuddin executed a sale-deed dated 23-3-67 in his favour.
(2.) ANOTHER objection was filed by Abdul Bari, the petitioner alleging that he had obtained plot in the disputed Khata on the basis of the sale-deed dated 1-5-74 executed by sons of Nizamuddin. The Con solidation Officer rejected the objection of the petitioner. The petitioner filed ap peal before the settlement officer con solidation. The settlement officer con solidation allowed the appeal on 6-9-78. Mohd. Gurfan, respondent No. 4 filed revision against the order dated 6-9-78 before the Deputy Director of Consolida tion. The revision has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 14- 1 -80 holding that the sale-deed executed in favour of Mohd. Gurfan was valid and he will get the right over the land in dispute. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that Nizamuddin was the tenure- holder of the land in dispute. He had executed a sale-deed in favour of Mohd. Gurfan on 23-3-67. The petitioner is claiming right on the basis of the sale-deed dated 1-5-74 ex ecuted by the sons of Nizamuddin. In case the sale deed executed by Nizamuddin is valid in favour of Mohd. Gurfan, the petitioner shall not get any right on the basis of the sale-deed dated 1-5-74. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sub mitted that Mohd. Gurfan had not filed the original sale-deed. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the original sale-deed was lost and to prove this fact an affidavit was filed and also the other evidence was also led. If the original document is lost and it is proved, the Court or authority can rely upon the secondary evidence. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 has not recorded any specific finding as to whether the original sale-deed which was in possession of Mohd. Gurfan, was lost. In view of the above, the writ peti tion is allowed. The order dated 14-1-80 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 will record the findings afresh in view of the observations made above. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. Petition allowed. .;