K.P. Singh, J.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Assistant Director, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, dated 11-7-1973, whereby the revision petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. The main grievance in the present writ petition raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the consolidation authorities have failed to consider the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner to prove his continuous possession for more than 12 years, hence according to the Petitioner the findings recorded by the appellate authority and the revisional court suffer from mistakes of law apparent on the face of the record.

3. For the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the oral evidence led on behalf of the Petitioner was not considered by the revisional court, that would not vitiate the findings recorded by the revisional court in the present case. In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the UPZA and LR Act even if the Petitioner is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha for 12 years he would not acquire Sirdari right in the disputed land. In this connection it is proper to mention the decision of this Cour