Order S. B. Sinha and R. M. Prasad, JJ.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Petitioners claim themselves to be settlee of Durjodhan Prasad Singh. Petitioners have given details of the land held by different pet1tioners in a chart which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. It appears that the lands claimed by the petitioners individually have been clubbed with the lands of the original landholder being late Ram Krishna Prasad Singh. Petitioner no. 1 is married sister of Late Ram Krishna Prasad Singh an1 petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are her son and daughter respectively. By the impugned orders which are contained in Annexures-1, 2 & 3, the Collector of the district, the Commissioner as also the Member, Board of Revenue rejected the claim of the petitioners. 3. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised two questions in support of the petitioners. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that spot verification in terms of Rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules has not been done in presence of the petitioners. Learned counsel next contended that the Authorities under the said Act did not consider the various documents filed by the petitioners. 4. Before us a certified copy of the list of documents has been filed. From a perusal thereof, it appears that the petitioners had filed a large number of documents. From the impugned order, it does not appear that the said documents have been taken into consideration by the courts-below. One of such documents is certified copy of the return filed by the son of ex-landlord (Sri Durjodhan Prasad Singh). It further appears that the Authorities had jumped to the conclusion that said Durjodhan Prasad Singh has no right, title and interest in relation to the lands in question but while arriving at the said decision, the return filed by his son has not been taken into consideration. Similarly, it appear that only some of the rent receipts granted in favour of the petitioners have been taken into consideration and the same has been rejected on the ground that the area mentioned in the said rent receipt do not tally with th0 area mentioned in Hukumnama. Similarly, it appear that only some of the rent receipts granted in favour of the petitioners have been taken into consideration and the same has been rejected on the ground that the area mentioned in the said rent receipt do not tally with th0 area mentioned in Hukumnama. Bat the Authorities had not taken into consideration other rent receipts which had been granted either by the ex-landlord or by the State of Bihar. Similarly various other documents filed by the petitioners have not been taken into consideration. It is now well known that failure to take into consideration the relevant facts, vitiates an order. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, the matter should be considered afresh by the Member, Board of Revenue. The Member, Board of Revenue shall call for the original records again and consider all the documents filed by the petitioners. The Member, Board of Revenue should also take into consideration the case of each of the petitioners individually. 6. In view of the fact that the matter has been pending for a long time, it is desirable that the revision filed by the petitioner being Revision Case Nos. 298 and 299 of 1989 should be disposed of by the Member, Board of Revenue at an early date and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed in part. The order as contained in Annexure-3 is quashed. 8. During the pendency of the said revision application, if the petitioners are in possession of the land in question, they may not be dispossessed from there.