JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- -This writ petition has been directed against the judgment of the revisional authority dated 26.6.1973. The following pedigree is necessary to appreciate the controversy raised in the writ petition : 2. It appears that Salik Ram and Tulsi Ram in the above pedigree had allegedly executed a sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 3 Ram Singh in the present writ petition. The aforesaid Ram Singh had filed an objection under Section 9 of the U.P.C.H. Act claiming that his name should be recorded as co-tenure-holder of the disputed land and the name of the petitioner be expunged. The Consolidation Officer gave judgment for the opposite party Ram Singh. In appeal the claim of the petitioner was accepted, but in revision again the contesting opposite party no. 3 has succeeded. Against the judgment of the revisional authority the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the revisional authority has relied upon the sale deed in favour of opposite party no. 3 which has not been proved. He has invited my attention to the observation of the revisional authority to the following effect : "......Ram Singh ke Hak me kiye gaye bainame Durvijai Singh niwasi nigdahiya gawah they. Unhon ne bainame ko pramanit kiya hai. Mere samaksh yeh bahas ki gayee hai ki Durvijai Singh ne spasth shabdon me bainame ko pramanit nahin kiya hai aur hastaksharon ko pramanit nahin kiya hai, parnatu is-se koi antar nahin parta. Unhon ne yeh kaha hai ki Tulsi Ram aur Salig Ram ne bainama Ram Singh ke hak me kiya, tab se Ram Singh ka kabja hai. Is prakar bainama purnataya pramanit hai." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the certified copy of the statement of Durvijai Singh filed along with an application and accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. None appears on behalf of the contesting opposite party. 6. In my opinion the revisional authority has patently erred in making the observation that the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite party was proved and could confer valid title upon the opposite party no. 3. If the sale deed is not proved in accordance with law, it would confer no right upon the contesting opposite party no. 6. In my opinion the revisional authority has patently erred in making the observation that the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite party was proved and could confer valid title upon the opposite party no. 3. If the sale deed is not proved in accordance with law, it would confer no right upon the contesting opposite party no. 3 Ram Singh in the present writ petition. Since the objection was filed by opposite party no. 3 Ram Singh, a heavy burden lay upon him to establish his claim. The sale deed in favour of the petitioner of the year 1969 was recognised and his name was recorded in the basic year, hence I think that the revisional authority has patently erred in accepting the sale deed in favour of the contesting opposite party no. 3 Ram Singh without appreciating the true and legal worth of the statement of Durvijai Singh which is on the record. If the claim of the contesting opposite party no. 3 Ram Singh fails, the net result would be that the basic year entry would continue and the petitioner shall stand benefitted. Since the very basis of the judgment of the revisional authority is incorrect, I think its judgment suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional authority dated 26.6.1973 is hereby quashed and the revisional authority is directed to re-examine the claim of the parties in the light of the observations made above and the evidence on record. There would be no order as to costs an no one appears on behalf of the contesting opposite party.