K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgments of the revisional court dated 1-8-1973 and 30-1-1973.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the claims of the parties through his order contained in Annexure VIII. Again that order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 9-6-1972. Against the order of the appellate authority the contesting opposite party had preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 30-1-1973. Thereafter an application for setting aside the order dated 30-1-1973 was filed which was dismissed through the order dated 1-8-1973. Aggrieved by the orders of the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the order dated 30-1-1973 passed by the revisional court is patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed. Even if the aforesaid order has been rightly confirmed by the revisional court through its order dated 1-8-1973, the latter order would fall through if the petitioner succeeds in challenging the order dated 30-1-1973.;