K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Basti, camp at Mirazpur, dated 5-9-73, whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year Mst. Manraji was recorded over the disputed plots constituting Khata No. 34 as Bhumidhar and one Smt. Bhagirathi was recorded as Mukarrardar on rent of Rs. 9/-. The contesting opposite parties Ram Gopal and others had claimed right in the disputed plots being heirs of Smt. Bhagirathi whereas the present petitioner had claimed Bhumidhari right in the disputed plots on the basis of a sale deed executed by Mst. Manraji in her favour. The consolidation officer through his judgment dated 25-10-71 (annexure 3 attached to the writ petition) held that the petitioner was Bhumidhar of the disputed plots and that the contesting opposite parties Ram Gopal, Gauri Snankar and Dina Nath were entitled to Asami right in the disputed plots. Aggrieved by the lodgment of the consolidation officer the parties preferred appeals and me appellate authority through its judgment dated 21-2-72 allowed the appeals filed by the contesting opposite parties Ram Gopal and others and dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner as is evident from annexure 4 attached to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision petitions which were dismissed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 5-9-73. Now, the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioner in the disputed plots in the circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also emphasised before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have failed to consider oral evidence led by the petitioner with regard to nature of possession enjoyed by the contesting opposite parties in the disputed plots, hence their judgments suffer from patent error and deserve to be quashed.;