JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The property in dispute stood in the name of Shital and Ganpat in the year 1347 F. and 1348 F. but from the year 1350 F., the name of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest was not recorded. 2. During the consolidation operation the petitioner claimed sole tenancy right in the disputed land, whereas the contesting opposite parties also claimed sole tenancy right being the heir of Shital whose name bad continued in the papers for Sufficiently long time. 3. All the consolidation authorities have given Judgment against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that all in the circumstances of the present case the petitioner should have been held is a co-tenure holder of the disputed land, but the consolidation authorities have patently erred in not recognising her as co-tenure holder and they have ignored material evidence on record while examining the claim of the petitioner. 5. None appear for the contesting opposite parties at present. 6. I have considered the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and I have gone through the impugned judgment of the revisional court. It is true that the parties have opened their mouths too wide but it is the duty of the courts to weigh their claims and arrive at correct conclusion. In the present case it is not clear how the claim of Ganpat, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner became extinguished in the disputed land. The revisional court has not addressed itself to this aspect of the matter and has suggested that a new settlement had taken place with Shital alone. Unless it is demonstrated that Shital and Ganpat were evicted from the disputed land at one point of time, it is difficult to accept fresh settlement with Shital. This aspect of the matter has escaped notice of the revisional court, hence its judgment suffer 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 court dated 7-1-74 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties and indicate in its judgment as to now the interest of Ganpat (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner became extinguished in the disputed land. 7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the Impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 7-1-74 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties and indicate in its judgment as to now the interest of Ganpat (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner became extinguished in the disputed land. The revisional court shall also examine the other materials on record which supports the claim, of the petitioner according to the learned counsel for the petitioner parties are directed to bear their own costs.