JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 21.2.87 (Annexurc-5) passed by revisional authority has preferred this writ petition. 2. The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 05 decimals with R.S. plot no.888 appertaining to khata no. 105, situated in the village-Mahuri into the district of Gaya. According to the petitioner, one Ali Mahammad has three sons, namely, Kariman Mian, Nabi Mian and wahid Ali. The petitioner is the son of Wahid Ali Kariman man died leaving behind his widow most. Battolan and four sons. Subsequently a partition took place in the year 1957 between the petitioner Nabi Mian and sons of Kariman Mian and by virtue of mutual partion, a partition deed was executed on 5.7.1967 (Annexure 1). constructed their houses over plot no. 418, 417 and 427 respectively, the partition was not effect with respect to those three plots with, the consent of the parties. During the revisional survy, c. s. plot no. 418 was carved out in different plots as R.S plot no. 887 with 5. decimals, R. S. plot no. 888 with 5 decimals. The other C. S. Plot no.427 was carved out and made R.S. plot no. 874 with 5 decimals and R.S. plot no. 875 with 6 decimals CS Plot No. 417 was numbered as R.S. Plot no. 882 with an area of to decimals. when the consolidation khatian was pre-prepared, the names of three brothers were entered and rent receipts were granted as enclosed as Annexure-2 series to the writ petition. R. S. Khatian was also published in the year 1977, wherein the names of petitioner and other brothers and their possession over the same were shown with respect to the land in question. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 never made any objection with respect to the plots in question i.e. plot no.888 and when filed application under section 10 (4) of the Consolidation Act, it was allowed by the Consolidation officer by impugned order dated 29.11.79. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner moved before the appellate authority, which was allowed by order dated 26.8.80 (Annexure-4) but the same was set aside by the revisional authority by order dated 21.2.1987 on a revision application preferred by respondent no.5, Smt. Pamwabs Devi. 4. According to the contesting respondents, she purchased piece of land by a registered sale deed dated 27.8.74. 4. According to the contesting respondents, she purchased piece of land by a registered sale deed dated 27.8.74. By the said deed, a number of plots including the plot no 888 in question was purchased by her from most. Battolan Bibi. Counsel for the contesting respondents relied on genealogical table at para-4 to the counter affidavit of the contesting respondents and submitted that the plot in question fall in the share of Karman Mian which devolved the widow Battolan Bibi and the sons. The correctness of the partition deed as contained in Annexure 1 has also been challenged by the contesting respondents. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, according to me, it is not necessary to decide the claim or counter claim of one or other party at this stage. From the appellate order (Annexure- 4), it will be evident that the appellate authority decided the case after discussion of number of evidence including exhibits which were placed before the authority. On the other hand, the impugned revisional order dated 21.2.87 is very cryptic. The revisional authority has neither discussed the case of one or other party, nor give any finding relating to the appellate order. No. discussion of any relevant evidences were made by it and merely giving reference of a file, the impugned revisional order was passed. In the aforesaid circumstances, according to me the matter requires re consideration by the revisional authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the revisional order dated 21.2.87 (Annexure-5) is set aside. The case stands remitted to the court of revisional authority to decide the claim of the parties after hearing them taking into note the evidences that may be led by one or, other party. It is expected that the revision application will be decided on an early date preferably within a period six months. However, on the facts and circumstance, of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.