JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This writ application is directed against the revisional order passed by the Commissioner in a consolidation proceeding. 2. The undisputed genealogy is as follows : Sukru (dead) ___________________________________________________ | | | Tirtha (dead) = Markanda (dead) Khandia (died issuless) | | Dasarath = ______________ Kausalya | | | Bidyadhar Madan(dead) Ghaisan (dead) | | ____________ Rama Chandra | | (dead) Dhaneswar Jogeswar | =Raibari Harsa It is not disputed that Rahi the widow of Tirtha, Kausalya the widow of Dasarath and Ghaisan the son of Dasarath and Kausalya have died. However, there is no evidence nor any finding relating to the date of death of Kausalya or Rahi, the last two female owners. It is also not disputed that the property in question had been sold by Rahi and Kausalya to the predecessors-in-interest of the present opposite parties 1 to 9. 3. Objections were filed by the persons representing the branch of Markanda on the ground that the alienation by the two widows was not for legal necessity and on the death of the two widows the property reverted to the reversioners, that is to say, the. heirs of Markanda. The forums below without determining this vital question have directed that the property should be recorded in the names of the opposite parties, mainly on the ground that a proceeding under the C.P.Tenancy Act had been initiated challenging the alienations and had been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 4. There is no dispute that at the time of alienation Rahi and Kausalya were the limited female owners. Alienation by a limited female owner is binding on the reversioners if the alienation is for legal necessity. However, if the alienation is not for legal necessity, the alienation is valid only during the life-time of such limited owner and on the death of the limited owner the property is to revert back to the reversioners. In the present case, there is no evidence nor any finding relating to the legal necessity. If it is found that the property was alienated for legal necessity, then the property has to be recorded in the name of the purchaser or his legal heirs. However, if it is found that the alienation is not supported by legal necessity, the question of date of death of the two limited owners would assume importance. If it is found that the property was alienated for legal necessity, then the property has to be recorded in the name of the purchaser or his legal heirs. However, if it is found that the alienation is not supported by legal necessity, the question of date of death of the two limited owners would assume importance. In such a case, the reversioner has to sue for recovery of possession of the alienated property within twelve years from the date of death of the limited owner. Since the forums below have not applied their mind to all these aspects, it is necessary that the judgments passed by the consolidation authorities including the revisional authority should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer shall now give opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. The fact that the alienation had been unsuccessfully challenged under the C.P.Tenancy Act would be of no consequence. The parties are directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 30th November, 2000. 5. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.