JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 15-3-88 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 26 of the Constitution. 2. Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year Dayaram was recorded as tenure-holder of the dispute land. The petitioners Brije and Ram Das claimed co-tenancy right therein. It appears that on the statement of alleged Dayaram, the claim of the petitioners was accepted by the consolidation officer. Against that order the alleged Dayaram preferred an appeal which was also withdrawn. Thereafter Dayaram died. The opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 claiming to be the heirs of Dayaram preferred an appeal against the order of the consolidation officer. The settlement officer of consolidation gave benefit of limitation to the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 but dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the appellate authority, the opposite parties preferred a revision petition which has been allowed by the revisional court through the impugned judgment dated 15-3-1988. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners before me is that the revisional court has patently erred in not recording a categorical finding that the proceedings before the consolidation officer and the appellate authority between the petitioners and the alleged Dayaram were fraudulent or in any manner stood vitiated due to some error of law or impropriety yet the revisional court has set aside the judgments of the consolidation officer and the appellate authority has asked the consolidation officer to decide the claim of the parties on merits. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties have tried to support the impugned judgments, According to him the alleged Dayaram was not real Dayaram nor Dayaram had made any statement before the consolidation officer nor had he preferred any appeal nor had he withdrawn any appeal. The claim of the opposite parties has rightly been directed by the revisional court to be decided by the consolidation officer on merits. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the impugned judgment of the revisional court, I think that the revisional court is under patent error of law in holding that the claim of co-tenancy put forward by the petitioners can only be accepted if it is supported' by documentary evidence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the impugned judgment of the revisional court, I think that the revisional court is under patent error of law in holding that the claim of co-tenancy put forward by the petitioners can only be accepted if it is supported' by documentary evidence. It is enough to observe that the claim of co-tenancy can be accepted on the basis of admission made by the correct Daya Ram as alleged by the petitioners. Since there is no definite finding by the revisional court that the earlier proceedings between the petitioners and Dayaram stood vitiated due to fraud or any illegality, the direction of the revisional court for determining the claims of the parties on merits after setting aside the judgments of the Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority between the petitioners and the alleged Dayaram appears to me wholly unjustified, illegal and without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it was the bounden duty of the revisional court to have addressed itself to the question whether the statement of Daya Ram relied upon by the petitioners was made by correct Daya Ram and whether Daya Ram had really filed an appeal and had withdrawn the same and whether the petitioners could prefer an appeal, after the death of alleged Daya Ram, against the order of the Consolidation Officer. Unless these material points are determined by the revisional court strictly in accordance with law, it had no jurisdiction to set aside, the judgments of the consolidation officer and the appellate authority between the petitioners and Daya Ram. To my mind, the impugned judgments suffer from patent errors of law and deserve to be allowed. 6. For the foregoing discussion, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 15-3-1988 is hereby quashed. The revisional court is directed to decide the claims of the parties regarding the statement of Daya Ram relied upon by the petitioners and the question whether the correct Daya Ram had preferred an appeal and had withdrawn the same. The revisional court is directed to decide the claims of the parties regarding the statement of Daya Ram relied upon by the petitioners and the question whether the correct Daya Ram had preferred an appeal and had withdrawn the same. The revisional court should also decide the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the contesting opposite parties could prefer an appeal against the order of the consolidation officer and the same was legally maintainable and in revision against that order the revisional court could set aside the earlier orders passed by the consolidation officer and the appellate authority between the petitioners and the alleged Daya Ram. After deciding these points, it would be open to the revisional court either to give opportunities to the parties to lead evidence and decide the claims of the parties itself on merits or it may remit the necessary issue regarding merits of the claim before the subordinate authority and after receipt of necessary findings it may decide or may remit the case to the subordinate authority for proper decision but before doing so, it would be necessary for the revisional court to decide the points mentioned above. 7. Since parties have exchanged their counter and rejoinder affidavits in this writ petition, I have decided the case finally at the admission stage.