JUDGMENT K.P Singh, J.- This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the revisional authority dated 10th April, 1975. 2. In the basic year the contesting opposite parties 2 and 3 were recorded over the disputed land. The petitioners had claimed tenancy right in the disputed land and had challenged basic year entry in favour of the opposite-parties 2 and 3. The Consolidation Officer gave judgment for the petitioners and his judgment was upheld in appeal, but in revision the judgment of the first two courts were set aside and the basic year entry has been maintained. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional authority, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the revisional authority has entertained the new plea on the question of limitation, but it has failed to examine that question in correct perspective. The revisional authority has patently erred in beserving that Dhakhal should have been taken within one year from the date of passing the final decree. It has been emphasised that the revisional authority has not given the data of execution application when it was moved and since the number of the execution is such that it appears that the execution application was moved within one year from the date of passing the final decree, but the revisional authority has mis-understood the circumstance involved in the case and has patently erred negativing the claim of the petitioners on the ground of limitation indicating that the petitioners got possession over the disputed land after one year from the date of the final decree. 4. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the opposite parties 2 and 3 failed to establish their claim and their suit was dismissed in the year 1969 and that judgment has not been taken into account by the revisional authority. 5. None appears on behalf of the contesting opposite-parties. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and I find that the revisional authority has not examined the fact involved in the present case nor it has given necessary datas for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners' claim stood barred on the ground of limitation. 5. None appears on behalf of the contesting opposite-parties. 6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners and I find that the revisional authority has not examined the fact involved in the present case nor it has given necessary datas for arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners' claim stood barred on the ground of limitation. It also appears that the revisional authority is under wrong notion that Dhakhal must be taken in one year from the date of the final decree in the suit. To my mind, the only requirement is that the application for execution should have been moved within one year from the date of the final decree. Since the revisional authority has failed to address this aspect of the matter, I think that its judgment suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 7. It is also note-worthy that opposite-parties 2 and 3 failed to establish their claim in a title suit and that judgment has also been ignored by the revitional authority while dealing with the claims of the parties. To my mind, important piece of evidence has escaped from the notice of the revisional authority, hence its judgment suffers from patent error of law. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional authority dated 10-4-1975 is, hereby, quashed and the revisional authority is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. Since the case is an old one, the revisional authority should decide the claims of the parties expeditiously. As none has appeared on behalf of the opposite-parties, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.