JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In the present writ petition the dispute between the parties centres round khata no. 182. The petitioner had claimed 1/10 share in the disputed Khata. The Consolidation Officer had given her 1/10 share whereas the Settlement Officer (C) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have reduced her share to 1/20. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority and that of the revisional Court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appellate authority has failed to examine the relevant evidence on record and has not met the reasoning of the Consolidation Officer while, reducing the share of the petitioner. He has also stressed that the revisional court has patently erred in confirming the judgment of the appellate authority on the ground that the finding recorded by the J.O. on 16-8-83 in another case regarding the death of Gangoli and remarriage of Smt. Bilaso would not operate as res judicata. 3. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion the revisional Court has patently erred in relying upon the finding recorded the Judicial Officer regarding the death of Gangoli before remarriage of Bilaso. 4. It is noteworthy that the judgment of judicial Officer was modified by the appellate authority on the basis of Compromise regarding the Share hence the finding recorded by the judicial Officer is not a finding of final Court and would not operate as final between the parties. When the final court had not confirmed that finding and had modified the share allotted by the Judicial Officer in the earlier suit on that basis to this extent the judgment of the revisional Court appears patently erroneous. 5. The judgment of the appellate authority also does not indicate that it has met the reasoning of the Consolidation Officer who allowed 1/10 share to the petitioner. However I am sending the case back to the revisional Court. I do not think proper to comment upon the reasoning of the appellate authority. It would be required of the revisional Court to look Into the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority. 6. However I am sending the case back to the revisional Court. I do not think proper to comment upon the reasoning of the appellate authority. It would be required of the revisional Court to look Into the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional Court dated 30-4-74 is hereby quashed and the revisional Court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.