JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings for cancellation of allotment made by the Gaon Sabha. 2. The petitioners are allottees. It appears that on 30th July, 1968 the Trial court abated the proceedings under Section 5 sub-clause (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. On 8.6.1970 a stranger named Rohan Singh moved an application for reviewing the order dated 30.7.1968. The Trial court through its order dated 16.11.1970 vacated the order dated 30.7.1968. The petitioners preferred revision petitions which were recommended to be allowed by the revisional authority as is evident from the judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated 21.6.1977. The revisional court appears to have dismissed the revision petitions through its order dated 25.1.1978. 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 petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court has arrived at the conclusion that the application for recalling the order dated 30th July, 1968 was not maintainable at the instance of Rohan Singh, who is stranger to the proceedings, yet it has confirmed the order of the Trial court vacating the order dated 30.7.68 on the ground that if the order sought to be revised was set aside, an illegal order would come into existence and that no manifest injustice has occurred to the applicants in revision. 4. None appears on behalf of the contesting opposite parties. 5. In my opinion the revisional court has patently erred in observing that no material injustice would be caused to the petitioners if the order dated 16.11.1970 is not set aside. 6. It is note-worthy that even if the order dated 30.7.1968 was bad in law and thereafter during the consolidation operations the claim of the applicants was recognised and the orders of the consolidation authorities were not challenged, the setting aside of the order dated 30.7.1968 would reopen a chapter of fresh litigation against the applicants in revision and this aspect of the matter has not been considered, by the revisional court. In the order of the Commissioner dated 21.6.71. It has been indicated that the claim of the applicants in revision was recognised by the consolidation authorities. In the order of the Commissioner dated 21.6.71. It has been indicated that the claim of the applicants in revision was recognised by the consolidation authorities. True that in revision petition the revisional authority would not set aside a wrong order with a view to restore another earlier wrong order, but where the earlier wrong order has been acted upon and a different set of authorities namely the consolidation authorities have recognised the claim of the applicants. In revision in the disputed land and their orders have not been challenged in the appropriate proceedings it was a relevant circumstance for the revisional court to take into account before refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. As the revisional court has failed to consider an important aspect that the claim of the applicants in revision had been recognised by the consolidation authorities, I think its order deserves to be quashed and it should be asked to reconsider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the circumstances that the petitioners claim had been accepted by the consolidation authorities and their judgments were not challenged by the title holder of the disputed land. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 25.1.1978 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to costs.