ORDER

K. P. Singh, J. -This writ petition is against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur dated 22-7-1974 whereby the petitioners revision petition has been dismissed.

2. In the basic year the disputed plot No. 584 measuring 0.33 was recorded in the names of contesting opposite parties Lotan and Gubbi as bhumidhari. The petitioner No. 1 Ramdev and Ram Samujh father of petitioner No. 2 had filed an objection with the allegations that the disputed plot was their sir and their ancestor Harihar Dutt had mortgaged the aforesaid plot to Shital Tewari and the mortgage had been redeemed on 17-8-1949, and thereafter they continued in possession, hence their names should be recorded over the disputed plot and the names of the recorded persons should f be expunged.

3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 18-11-1972 accepted the claim of the petitioners and ordered the expunction. of the names of the contesting opposite parties. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Consolidation Officer the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition had filed an appeal which was allowed and the names of the petitioners had been expunged. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority the petitioners preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed. Now the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have misread the evidence on record and they have ignored the statement of Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties, hence their findings are vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel has emphasised before me that when Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 had made a statement disowning any right and title in the disputed land, the same should have been accepted as binding upon the contesting opposite parties and in not doing so the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred and their judgment should be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to him the appellate authority and the revisional court have appraised the circumstances involved in the present case and have arrived at correct conclusions, hence their judgments should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It has also been contended that the statement of Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties was rightly ignored by the appellate authority and the revisional court in the present case. The claim of the contesting opposite parties has been rightly accepted by the higher authorities and that the petitioners claim is against the truth, hence the same should not be accepted.

6. I have examined contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I find that the Consolidation Officer while recognising the claim of the petitioners has relied upon the statement of Mangaru dated 15-3-60 whereby he had indicated that his name was wrongly recorded over the disputed area. The appellate authority has expressed itself in para 3 of its judgment in the following words:-

"....... Ramdev ke taraf se ek bayan ki nakal dakhil ki gayee hai. Jisme Mangaru ne kaha hai ki is par mera kabja nahin hai. Yeh nakal kisi nyayik record ki nahin hai aur na is par koi ticket adi laga huaa hai, Aur na hi is bayan ko Ram Dev ne apne apatti me jikra kiya hai aur na is kism ka koi case liya gaya hai."

The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also expressed himself in the following words :-

"Nigrani-karta ne Mangaru ki bayan par jyada jor diya lekin is bayan ke rebut karne ke liye vipakshi ko 'aw-asar nahin mila. Iske atirikt is bayan par purn rup se vishwas nahin kiya ja sakta. Kyonki yed pata nahin ki kin paristhitiyon ke bich yeh bayan huwa. Is bayan me lakhapal ki diary aur tithi ka varnan nahin hai. Sathh