K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgment of the appellate authority dated 27-4-1974 contained in Annexure '2' as well as that of the revisional authority dated 28-5-1975 contained in Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the contesting respondents had claimed co-tenancy right in the disputed land. The petitioners had contested the claim of the contesting respondents on the allegation that the disputed land was acquisition of their ancestors, Bahadur and Sahadur, and the contesting respondents had no share in the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer gave , judgment against the contesting respondents in the present writ petition as is evident from the judgment dated 10-3-1973. In appeal, the claim of the contesting respondents has been accepted as is evident from the judgment of the appellate authority dated 27th April, 1974. The petitioners have failed in revision-petition as is evident from the impugned judgment dated 28-5-1975. Now, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the petitioners and their ancestors were recorded over the disputed land from 1334 F. onwards, hence their claim was rightly accepted by the Consolidation Officer, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have patently erred in accepting the claim of the contesting respondents. It has been emphasized that the entry of 1334 F., being of settlement year, should have been accepted by the higher consolidation authorities. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the name of the objector was not shown over the disputed land for a pretty long time and they did not get their claim agitated and decided within the period of limitation hence the petitioner's claim stood established. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that a summon has been filed to demonstrate that the interest of the ancestors of the respondents in the present writ petition had extinguised but the same has not been adhered to by the higher consolidation authorities.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted in reply that the disputed land was originally shown in the names of the ancestros of the parties ; hence their claim has been rightly accepted by the higher consolidation authorities. THE second submission made on behalf of the contesting respondents is that the summon relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not conclusively prove that the interest of the ancestors of the contesting respondents became extinct in the disputed land. THE third submission of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent is that on the materials on record, it has not been demonstrated that the claim of the contesting respondents became extinct due to ouster and hostile possession of the petitioners or their ancestors over the disputed land ; hence in the circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to say that the impugned judgments suffer from any error of law much less patent error. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition and I have also examined the documents relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners attached with the supplementary-affidavit. In my opinion, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any patent error of law.;