JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the appellate authority and that of the revisional authority. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the aforesaid consolidation authorities have misread the documents on record. They have drawn adverse inference from the documentary evidence hence the impugned judgments should be quashed and they be directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that on the findings of fact recorded by the two courts, the claim of the petitioners deserves to be rejected outright. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party if the findings are recorded on the basis of forged and fictitious documents, howsoever erroneous they may be, they cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction by this Court. According to him the findings of fact in the present case are such which are not amenable to interference in writ jurisdiction by this court. 4. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgment of the appellate court and that of the revisional court. No doubt both the courts have held that the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land since 1360-F. onwards but their findings appear to me as based on misreading of the documentary evidence. The discussion in the impugned judgments indicates that there is some entry expunging the name of the petitioners in the khatauni of 1359-F but bears the date as 3-9-1955 (as mentioned in the judgment of the appellate court). The whole judgment of the appellate court is based on the khatauni of 1359-F. To me it appears that the appellate court has committee some mistake due to which is under the impression that in 1359-F. Khatauni the entry of the order dated 3-9-1955 would have been made. It is patently erroneous and the document should have been viewed with suspicion if the observations of the appellate court are correct. To my mind the appellate court has patently erred in relying upon the khatauni of 1359-F. In the circumstances of this case. Similarly the revisional authority has also patently erred in making the following observation :- "............ It is patently erroneous and the document should have been viewed with suspicion if the observations of the appellate court are correct. To my mind the appellate court has patently erred in relying upon the khatauni of 1359-F. In the circumstances of this case. Similarly the revisional authority has also patently erred in making the following observation :- "............ 1359-F Men adesh ke dawara unke naam kharij hokar vipakshi ke vikretagan ke naam ankit huye....." The revisional authority has also observed that the petitioners were not in possession since 1359-F but it appears that the revisional court has also not cared to read the revenue records in correct perspective. It has also observed as below :- "......Is prakar patrawali par upiaedh sakshya se yah nisknrsh nikalta hai ki 1350-Fke paad Radhey Shyarn va Srinath ke naam vivadi bhumi par ankit huye jinhone 1363 va 1968-F men bhumi ka bainama Badri ke paksh me kar diya." 5. If the khatauni of 1359-F contains an order dated 3-9-1955 regarding the expunction of the names of the petitioners and that evidence has weighed with the revisional court in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners were not recorded from 1360-F. I think that the revisional court has also committed patent error in appraising the evidence on record. The basis of the two judgments appears to me the extract of khatauni of 1359-F which is surrounded by impossible circumstances. The ends of justice demands that the judgment of the revisional court be quashed and the revisional court be directed to re-examine the claim of the parties in the light of the materials on record. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has emphasised that both the courts have found the adverse possession of the contesting opposite party hence the claim of the petitioners should be rejected. If the higher consolidation authorities have read an important piece of evidence wrongly it is difficult to say how far their findings of fact (so-called) should be accepted by this Court. To me the findings of fact appear on a misreading of the documentary evidence and deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the revisional court has arbitrarily observed that the applicants in revision failed to establish their possession after 1359-F hence their right came to an end. The revisional court has placed the burden on wrong shoulder. To me the findings of fact appear on a misreading of the documentary evidence and deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the revisional court has arbitrarily observed that the applicants in revision failed to establish their possession after 1359-F hence their right came to an end. The revisional court has placed the burden on wrong shoulder. It was for the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite party to establish how they acquired title to the disputed land, on the basis of adverse and continuous possession for more than statutory period. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1978 R.D. 305 Uma Shankar and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. The aforesaid ruling is inapplicable to the facts of the present case because there is no categorical finding about the length of possession of the contesting opposite party or his predecessor-in-interest. 7. It has also been stressed that this Court could not interfere with the finding of the revisional court because there was some evidence in support of the finding in this connection the learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1981 R.D. page 12(13) Bansh Lal v. D.D.C. Kanpur and others. The aforesaid ruling is also distinguishable and inapplicable to the circumstances of present case in the present case, the revisional court has failed to record categorical finding by placing burden on right shoulder to establish its claim. Therefore, the judgment of the revisional court is amenable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 17-4-1980 is hereby quashed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.