K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) In this Writ petition the petitioners claimed contenancy right with opposite party no. 5 and others. The claim of the petitioners has been negatived by all the consolidation authorities. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revisional court has patently erred in holding that the receipt contained in Annexure '1' attached with the writ petition did not prove the settlement with the plaintiffs along with the contesting opposite parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the observation of the revisional court is patently erroneous and it should be quashed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions by pointing out the observation made by the appellate authority and has contended that the Settlement with the petitioners has not been accepted by the appellate authority on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove as to who was the Zamindar of the land in suit and the settlement with the tenure holders was done by the rightful person.;