ORDER

K. P. Singh, J. -This writ petition is against the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, dated 10-8-77 whereby the revision petition filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 Dhanush Dhari Singh was allowed.

2. The disputed plots Nos- 81/2 measuring 192 links and 83/1 measuring 235 links of village Ghazipur, Pargana Nathupur, district Azamgarh were recorded as Sirdari of the opposite party No. 2 in die basic year and the petitioner had claimed Sirdari right in the disputed plots on the basis of his continuous possession for more than statutory period under S. 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Consolidation Officer gave judgment for the petitioner and the appellate authority also confirmed the judgment of the consolidation officer, but the revisional court through the impugned judgment has reversed the judgments of the subordinate authorities and has given judgment for the opposite party No. 2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate authority has recorded categorical finding to the effect that the petitioner was in possession from 1365 to 1376 Fasli and the same has not been specifically set aside by the revisional court, yet the claim of the petitioner has been negatived.

4. Secondly, he has contended that the entry in Class IX in favour of the petitioner could be made by any of the authorities, namely Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar and the revisional court has patently erred in discarding the revenue entries in favour of the petitioner.

5. Thirdly, he has contended that the entry in favour of the petitioner in Class IX had been made on the basis of the order passed by the Tahsildar hence it was legally correct entry and the same has been wrongly discarded by the revisional court.

6. Fourthly, he has contended that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly discarded commenting the entry of 1362 Fasli only.

7. Lastly, he has contended that the revisional court has misread the evidence about the forcible possession of the petitioner over the disputed land, hence it has arrived at patently erroneous conclusion.

8. In reply the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted that the revisional court has appraised the evidence on record and has arrived at the findings of fact which should not be interfered with in the exercise of powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution by this Court. He has also submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove his possession over the disputed land for requisite period and his claim has rightly been negatived by the revisional court. He has also refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the revisiosal court has arrived at correct conclusions which cannot be termed as suffering from patent errors.

9. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

10. As regards the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is evident that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had accepted the possession of the petitioner from 1365 to 1376 Fasli on the basis of Khasra entries and the revisional court has indicated in its impugned judgment that the petitioner was not recorded in possession in the years 1370, 1371 and 1372 Fasli. In this view of the matter I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court has committed patent error in not recognising the claim of the petitioner or the revisional court has committed such patent error in not setting aside the findings recorded by the appellate authority on the question of petitioners possession specifically as would call for interference by this Court.

11. As regards the second and third, contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noteworthy that the entry in favour of the petitioner in Class IX over the disputed land could be made in the year 1362 Fasli only by the Assistant Collector in