S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Ms. Dey, learned Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner and Sri C. K. Rai, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents. 2. Matter has again been taken up on the recall application filed by the respondent side. Writ petition was decided by this Court by judgment dated 22. 1. 1981 by which matter was remitted to the Revisional Court for being decided afresh. Application is moved on the ground that respondent had no notice and there was no representation of the respondent when the writ petition was decided. 3. In view of the aforesaid, this Court permitted both sides to argue on the merits of the writ petition by accepting the grievance of the respondent to be corrected. 4. Accordingly after allowing the recall application as jointly submitted, requested the writ petition was heard and is being decided. Writ petition is of the year 1973 and it was decided in the year 1981 and after disposal of the recall application writ petition is being heard and decided today. For disposal of the writ petition facts in brief will suffice. 5. Basic year record, records the name of both sides. Objections came to be filed from both sides by which both sides claimed to be the sole owner of the property. Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the respondents and thus declared him to be the sole owner. On appeal filed by the petitioner basic year entry was directed to be maintained and thus both remain recorded as co-tenant. On filing revision again the respondent succeeded and thus declared to be the sole owner of the property upon which this writ petition, by the petitioner. 6. When the matter was earlier decided a consideration was there that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not touched the question of possession and at the same time rights of the petitioner on the basis of the deeds in his-favour. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner side claimed rights on the basis of old deeds which relates to certain trees. Respondent side claimed rights on the basis of another deed as referred to in the judgment. In the order of mutation both sides were found to be in possession which was found to be so in view of the statement of lekhpal. Respondent side claimed rights on the basis of another deed as referred to in the judgment. In the order of mutation both sides were found to be in possession which was found to be so in view of the statement of lekhpal. In these proceedings from the side of the petitioner statement of Ram Dular is said to have been recorded. From the side of respondent also there is statement of the witnesses as referred to in the order of the Consolidation Officer. Respondent side claims to have filed certain documentary evidence also to show its exclusive possession. Petitioner relied upon the oral evidence and the order of the mutation about possession. Be as it may, besides the deed on the basis of which rights/title is being claimed if otherwise both parties are proved in joint possession for quite long then on that basis also co-tenancy rights can be accepted. It is not to be impressed that co-tenancy rights can be acquired under the norms provided in law. Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not touched the question of possession and rights of the parties accordingly. The main and the sole consideration which weighed in the mind of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was third settlement entry and the petitioner side never tried to get the name recorded. This approach may not be so sound irrespective of the aforesaid as observed above, the question of possession can be said to be of quite importance while considering cotenancy rights of the parties. Appellate authority accepted the co-tenancy rights of both parties by permitting the basic year entry to continue. Thus this Court is of the considered view that the matter is to be again examined by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the light of the oral and documentary evidence which may be available on the record from either of the sides. 8. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned judgment of the revisional authority is quashed. Revisional authority is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of the sides. Petition Allowed. .