( 1 ) IN this writ petition the contesting opposite party Ram Deo now represented by his heirs had claimed a sirdari right in the disputed plots on the basis of his unauthorised occupation for more than statutory period without the consent of the tenure-holders.

( 2 ) IN the basic year the petitioners father Kanhai was recorded as tenure-holder and the contesting opposite party Ram Deo was found in possession over the disputed plots. The petitioners father had contested the claim of contesting opposite party Ram Deo and had alleged that the claim of the contesting opposite party was wholly unfounded and his name should be expunged.

( 3 ) THE Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority gave judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional Court has recognised the claim of the contesting opposite party Ram Deo. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court the petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional Court has patently erred in placing reliance upon the entries in favour of the contesting opposite party, which were not strictly in a