JUDGMENT B. Kumar, J. - The dispute in the present writ petition relates to Khata No. 20 which was recorded in the basic year in the name of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are brothers. The land was purchased by them by means of saledeed dated 1171961 executed by Surya Pal Singh. Surya Pal Singh is father of opposite party No. 1 and uncle of opposite party no. 2 Durga Bux Singh. Opposite party no. 1 Gaya Bux Singh filled objection against the basic year entry. From the order of the Consolidation Officer it appears that his objection was to the effect that the land in dispute belonged to his grandfather Bhairon Singh. Objector Gaya Bux Singh alleged to have been born during the life time of Bhairon Singh. Therefore, he also become a shareholder in the property. According to the objector Gaya Bux Singh, he, his father Surya Pal and uncle Jagat Bahadur constituted a joint family and claimed rights on the basis of coparcenry. His objection, therefore, was that Surya Pal Singh could not sell the whole Khata No. 20 to the petitioners. The learned Consolidation Officer by his order dated 6973 allowed the objection of Gaya Bux Singh observing that the case of the objector Gaya Bux Singh appeared to be correct as the property in question belonged to Bhairon Singh in which Surya Pal Singh as well as Gaya Bux Singh had equal shares. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer the petitioners went up in appeal. The appeal was also dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by his order dated 1821975. It is surprising to note that the appellate court dealt with the matter in a most cursory manner and has only observed that the Consolidation Officer has rightly held that Gaya Bux Singh had share in the property which was sold by Suryapal Singh to Babban Singh. It has also been observed that Gaya Bux Singh had share as coparcener. No evidence oral or documentary has been touched by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director, Consolidation has also not considered the matter in any better manner, in the revision, filed by the petitioners. All that he has observed is that on the basis of the evidence on the record it appeared that Gaya Bux Singh had share in the property as a coparcener. The Deputy Director, Consolidation has also not considered the matter in any better manner, in the revision, filed by the petitioners. All that he has observed is that on the basis of the evidence on the record it appeared that Gaya Bux Singh had share in the property as a coparcener. Therefore, Surya Pal Singh had no right to sell the whole Khata to the petitioner. The main basis, upon which the claim of opposite party no. 1 Gaya Bux Singh is based, is that he was born during the lifetime of Bhairon Singh. It appears that to prove his case he did not adduce any evidence on that point. On the other hand it has been averred in para 8 of the writ petition that Gaya Bux Singh had stated in his statement that he was born when Bhairon Singh had died. No specific denial of this fact has been made in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties. A general averment has been made denying paragraph 8 of the writ petition with a further averment, namely, the consolidation authorities have considered all the evidence adduced before them. But I find that this piece of oral evidence has nowhere been even mentioned by any of the consolidation authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a number of witnesses have been examined from both the sides. It appears that about 6 or 7 witnesses were examined but the oral evidence has not been touched at all by the courts below. So far as documents are concerned, it has been stated in the writ petition that number of documents including Khataunis of 1359 F., 1362 F., 1364 F. have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein, the name of Surya Pal Singh alone was recorded. Copies of other documents had also been filed but none of these documents have been mentioned or taken into consideration by any of the Consolidation authorities. As a matter of fact all the three courts have very cursorily dealt with the matter without going into the evidence available on the record of the case. The other aspect of the matter, which has also been pressed before this court, is that the petitioners are, in any case, bonafide purchaser for value without notice about the share of Gaya Bux Singh, has also not been considered by the Consolidation Courts. 2. The other aspect of the matter, which has also been pressed before this court, is that the petitioners are, in any case, bonafide purchaser for value without notice about the share of Gaya Bux Singh, has also not been considered by the Consolidation Courts. 2. On behalf of the opposite parties it has been submitted that the case of Gaya Bux Singh that he has a share in the property as coparcener finds support by the findings of the Consolidation Officer recorded while deciding the case No. 1327 relating to Khata No. 44. The submission made is misconceived as there appear to be some dispute between Aniruddha Pratap Singh and Durga Bux Singh relating to Khata No. 44 in case No. 1327. Therefore, no inference can be drawn on the basis of any finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer in that case. Petitioners were not parties in that case nor the subject matter of dispute was the same. Aniruddha Pratap Singh and Durga Bux Singh who are first cousin, were parties in that case. Finding recorded in that case would not bind the petitioners. This case will have to be decided on the merits of its own. 3. In my view, since the documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record has not been considered by the consolidation courts it will be appropriate that the case is decided afresh by the opposite party no. 3, viz., the Deputy Director, Consolidation, Pratapgarh. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the opposite party no. 3 contained in Annexure 3 is set aside. The case is remanded to opposite party no. 3 who shall restore the revision to its original number and decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment and after taking into consideration the entire evidence available on the record. No order as to costs.