K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 15-3-88 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 26 of the Constitution.
(2.) Necessary facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year Dayaram was recorded as tenure-holder of the dispute land. The petitioners Brije and Ram Das claimed co-tenancy right therein. It appears that on the statement of alleged Dayaram, the claim of the petitioners was accepted by the consolidation officer. Against that order the alleged Dayaram preferred an appeal which was also withdrawn. Thereafter Dayaram died. The opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 claiming to be the heirs of Dayaram preferred an appeal against the order of the consolidation officer. The settlement officer of consolidation gave benefit of limitation to the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 but dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the appellate authority, the opposite parties preferred a revision petition which has been allowed by the revisional court through the impugned judgment dated 15-3-1988.
(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners before me is that the revisional court has patently erred in not recording a categorical finding that the proceedings before the consolidation officer and the appellate authority between the petitioners and the alleged Dayaram were fraudulent or in any manner stood vitiated due to some error of law or impropriety yet the revisional court has set aside the judgments of the consolidation officer and the appellate authority has asked the consolidation officer to decide the claim of the parties on merits.;