JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition arises out 'of the proceedings for allotment of chaks under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court dated 1-9-1975 contained in Annexure 4' attached with the writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional court has given wrong facts in the impugned judgment and that indicates that it has failed to apply its mind to the grievances of the petitioners and at least the reasoning given by the revisional court in upholding the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is patently erroneous. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned judgment should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the revisional court for dealing with the claims of the petitioners in accordance with law. 3. In reply the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 has submitted that the impugned judgment of the revisional court is quite in consonance with the provisions of law and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 is that the petitioners have utterly failed to show that any manifest injustice has occurred to them. Therefore, even if some technical mistake exists in the order of the revisional court, the impugned judgment should not be quashed. It has been emphasised that after the allotment of the land to the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 they have improved their judgment they would be put to great loss, therefore, the impugned judgment should be sustained. 5. The third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 is that the only grievance of the petitioners is that their area has been wrongly reduced and the reduced area has reality been allotted to Dubar and Ram Autar, opposite parties nos. 5. The third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 is that the only grievance of the petitioners is that their area has been wrongly reduced and the reduced area has reality been allotted to Dubar and Ram Autar, opposite parties nos. 14 and 18 in the present case, persons in the writ petition namely Uma Shanker (brother of the petitioners) the equities claimed by the petitioners cannot be adjusted and the writ petition should be dismissed on this score : "It is noteworthy that in writ petitions arising out of proceedings for allotment of chaks mere mistakes of law committed by the subordinate authorities are not enough to quash the impugned judgments but the petitioners should also satisfy the conscience of the Court that grave and manifest injustice has been done to them. In allotment proceedings some hardship is bound to occur to some of the tenure-holders but unless the petitioners succeed to indicate that grave and manifest injustice has been, to their cause by the impugned judgment, no interference should be made in writ jurisdiction. In the present case I am not satisfied that any grave and manifest injustice has been done to the claim of the petitioners. Even if the impugned judgment may be technically defective, I am not inclined to interfere with the same in the exercise of my powers under Article -226 of the Constitution". 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised in rejoinder that the revisional court has patently erred and despite an opportunity having been given to the opposite parties nos. 4 to 9, they have not given categorical answer to the allegations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition, therefore, the impugned judgment of the revisional court deserves to be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at great length I think that the impugned judgment should be quashed. In para 3 of the impugned judgment it has been indicated that the petitioners had got 4.61 acres of land of 13 or 14 annas valuation and 2.48 acres of land of 3 to 9 annas valuation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a matter of fact, the petitioners got only 0.7 acres land of 13 and 14 annas valuation and 7 and odd acres land of 3 to 9 annas valuation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as a matter of fact, the petitioners got only 0.7 acres land of 13 and 14 annas valuation and 7 and odd acres land of 3 to 9 annas valuation. Therefore, it has been strenuously contended that the reasonings and basis of the impugned judgment are patently erroneous and the impugred judgment should be quashed. As I gave an opportunity to the opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 to rebut the contentions and in the supplementary counter affidavit the aforesaid allegations have not been specifically controverted, therefore, I conclude that the revisional court failed to apply its mind to the facts and grievances of the petitioners and it has patently-erred in dealing with the claim of the petitioners. On the facts and reasonings mentioned in the impugned judgment it is difficult to sustain the impugned judgment. 8. It is well known that the revisional court is a last court of facts. When its order contains the glaring wrong facts it is not proper to sustain that judgment, even on other facts coming to the knowledge of this Court it may be inferred that the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act were not contravened. However, if the contentions-raised on behalf of the petitioners about non-applicability of the mind of the revisional court due to wrong facts is accepted, especially when the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 have failed to controvert that aspect of the matter, I think that the ends of justice demand that the impugned judgment should be quashed. 9. No doubt the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 emphasises that unless grave error, and manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioners the judgments of the subordinate authorities should not be quashed, but in the circumstances of the present case I have a feeling that if the revisional court realises its mistake about wrong facts given in the impugned judgment it might rectify its mistake and deal with the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. Since the revisional court is the court of facts and at this stage it is difficult to assume in what way the revisional court would deal with the claim of the petitioners, it would not be proper for this court to express any concluded opinion. 10. Since the revisional court is the court of facts and at this stage it is difficult to assume in what way the revisional court would deal with the claim of the petitioners, it would not be proper for this court to express any concluded opinion. 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 has emphasised that the claim of the petitioners would be accepted by the revisional court despite no contravention of Section 19 of the U.P.C.H. Act has taken place. It is not proper to apprehend that the claim of the petitioners shall be accepted and some prejudicial order must be passed against the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9. The claim of the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 would also be examined by the revisional court in the light of the circumstances that they have improved their land during the interval of long period since the impugned order has been passed. 11. It has also been suggested that the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 have not got, any land of the petitioners in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Officer (C), rather their land has been allotted to the petitioners, therefore, when the impugned judgment is quashed, the revisional court shall not try to disturb the chak of the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9. I think it proper to observe that if the land of the petitioners was not given to the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 9 in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), their chak should not be disturbed hearinafter. It has been demonstrated before me that the petitioners were really aggrieved due to the circumstance that their land has been allotted to Dubar and Ram Autar Contesting opposite parties nos. 14 and 18 in the present writ petition, therefore, the petitioners are utmost entitled to adjustment and equities against them and they should not get any thing from the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 in the writ petition. However, this aspect of the matter involves determination of question of fact which should be considered by the revisional court hereafter in the circumstances of the present case. 12. It has also been stressed by the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 in the writ petition. However, this aspect of the matter involves determination of question of fact which should be considered by the revisional court hereafter in the circumstances of the present case. 12. It has also been stressed by the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 that Uma Shanker, brother of the petitioners has not been impleaded in the present writ petition, therefore, the impugned judgment should not be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that Uma Shanker is not a necessary or proper party in the present writ petition, therefore, he was not impleaded. Nothing has been brought to my notice that if the impugned order of the revisional court is quashed, how the absence of Uma Shanker would be fatal to the maintainability of the present writ petition. I think that if Uma Shanker has grievance, he would contest the claim of the petitioners before the revisional court hereafter. It would also be open to the contesting opposite parties to raise all legal points before the revisional court to demonstrate that if Uma Shanker is not a party before the revisional court, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners. 13. The contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties nos. 4 to 9 that in the absence of any legal mistake in the impugned judgment and grave error or manifest injustice to the petitioners, this Court cannot quash the impugned judgment, are devoid of merit. When the revisional court being last court of fact has given wrong facts in its impugned judgment it is difficult to say that the revisional court has not committed patent error even when the mistake of fact is patent the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not barred for quashing the impugned judgment. 14. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 1-9-1975 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the present case the parties shall bear their own costs.