K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) In this petition, the judgment of the revisional authority dated 1-8-1981 has been challenged.
(2.) The petitioners contend that the revisional authority has patently erred in observing that the parties were agreed that the area in dispute should be kept out of Consolidation.
(3.) Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation enhanced the value of the tube-well on the objection of the contesting opposite partes and the revisional authority has not said a word about it hence the proceedings before the revisional authority were illegal and the impugned judgment should be quashed.;