JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The halqa wherein the land of the petitioner is situated was subjected to consolidation. A consolidation scheme stood prepared. The consolidation scheme as stood prepared was acted upon by the consolidation authorities inasmuch as attestation of mutation in consonance with the proposals incorporated therein stood recorded by the competent officer. The grievance of the petitioner is qua his in the pre consolidation era being the sole owner in possession of Khasra Nos. 72, 704 and 713. His lands borne on Khasra Nos. 72, 704 and 713 have been contended to have been not meted an accurate valuation qua their respective crop yielding capacities sequelling on conclusion of consolidation proceedings his being not allotted the entire area of land comprised in Khara Nos. 704 and 72 rather a portion thereof having stood untenably allotted to respondents No. 5 to 7. In other words, the petitioner herein raised an objection qua the under assessment by the authorities concerned qua value of the crop yielding capacities of Khasra Nos. 72 and 704 having resultantly begotten the consequence of respondents No. 5 to 7 herein being allotted a part of Khasra Nos. 72 and 704. A perusal of annexure P-4 unravells the factum of some noticeable infirmities existing qua valuation of the crop yielding capacity of Khasra No. 704. However, the said infirmity being unrectifiable before the officer who rendered Annexure P-4 constrained him to not revise the value of Khasra No. 704. Given the aforesaid observation recorded in Annexure P-4 it is obviously apparent of some deficiency existing qua the valuation of Khasra No. 704 inasmuch as qua its crop yielding capacity. Besides even when the petitioner herein had mentioned in annexure P-1/T qua the under valuation in the consolidation scheme of the crop yielding capacity of Khasra No. 72, yet the authorities omitted to in their respective renditions pronounce upon the plea raised by the petitioner herein in annexure P-1-T qua the under valuation of the crop yielding capacity of Khasra No. 72. The order in revision existing in annexure P-7 at page 36 though has meted a rendition qua the plea of the petitioner herein of an under valuation in the consolidation scheme of Khasra No. 72 and of Khasra No. 704 carrying no sustainable force nonetheless the rendition of the Director Consolidation of Holdings comprised in annexure P-7 of both Khasra Nos. 72 and 704 having been meted an appropriate valuation qua their respective crop yielding capacity may not be sustainable as there is no reference therein qua the observation existing in annexure P-4 of Khasra No. 704 having not been meted an appropriate valuation qua its crop yielding capacity and of inaccuracy in its valuation being un-rectifiable at the stage when annexure P-4 was rendered. Even with annexure P-4 having noticed an infirmity in the under allotment of land comprised in Khasra No. 704 to the petitioner on conclusion of consolidation proceedings arising from its having been not meted its appropriate valuation qua its crop yielding capacity necessarily it was incumbent upon the authority who rendered Annexure P-7 to mete a tangible reason for overcoming the infirmity aforesaid qua Khasra No. 704 noticed in annexure P-4. However, the authority who rendered annexure P-7 has palpably not meted therein any reason for overcoming the deficiency qua Khasra No. 704 occurring in annexure P-4. Obviously when no tangible reason stands emanated on a reading of annexure P-7 in portrayal of the aforesaid lapse noticed in annexure P-4 qua Khasra No. 704 standing hence benumbed renders it to be constituting a cryptic as well as a non speaking rendition qua khasra No. 704 even when a reason exists therein of Khasra number aforesaid having been meted an appropriate valuation qua its crop yielding capacity. Moreso, when the reason as meted out therein qua the aforesaid facet carries no force especially with its being bereft of any discussion for overwhelming the infirmity qua Khasra No. 704 noticed in annexure P-4. Furthermore, the petitioner herein had ventilated a grievance of the Consolidation Officer having not meted any reasoning qua his grievance ventilated qua Khasra No. 72. With the grievance ventilated by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer qua Khasra No. 72 having remained unadjudicated necessarily the revisional court in its rendition comprised in annexure P-7 could not have proceeded to conclude of Khasra No. 72 having been meted an appropriate valuation qua its crop yielding capacity. With the grievance ventilated by the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer qua Khasra No. 72 having remained unadjudicated necessarily the revisional court in its rendition comprised in annexure P-7 could not have proceeded to conclude of Khasra No. 72 having been meted an appropriate valuation qua its crop yielding capacity. The reason for forming the aforesaid inference ensues from the pre-eminent fact of the revisional court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction which in its entirety rests upon its gauging from the record available before it any apparent infirmity in the process of reasoning adopted by the authorities below in pronouncing upon the tenability of the grievance of the petitioner herein qua Khasra No. 72 anvilled on the facet aforesaid, whereas with no pronouncement existing in the renditions of the authorities below qua the grievance addressed by the petitioner herein before them qua Khasra No. 72 obviously the revisional Court stood de-equipped to dwell upon the reasoning adopted by the authorities below for discountenancing the claim of the petitioner qua Khasra No. 72 nor also it could hence overrule the dis-afforded reasoning qua Khasra No. 72 by the authorities below besides it was forbidden to travel beyond the record available before it for pronouncing in annexure P-7 qua the untenability of the grievance of the petitioner herein qua Khasra No. 72 rather the appropriate course for the revisional Court was to remand the matter to the authorities below for pronouncing upon the claim of the petitioner qua Khasra No. 72. Consequently, the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi to after gauging through the entire record qua accuracy of valuation of Khasra Nos. 72 and 704 qua their respective crop yielding capacity thereupon render an adjudication qua whether the allotment of land in Khasra numbers aforesaid to respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 is tenable or not. Any grievance of the petitioner qua Khasra Nos. 713 and 69 be also looked into. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, is directed to decide the matter within three months. The petition is disposed of accordingly.