K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The disputed land has been claimed by the petitioners as their own on the allegations that it is their separate property. It has also been stressed that the contesting opposite party Chandra Deep and others wrongly recorded over the disputed land. The Consolidation Officer has given judgment for the petitioners whereas the appellate authority and the revisional court have given judgment for the contesting opposite party.
(2.) Before me, it has been contended that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in treating the property as joint property in the facts and circumstances of the case. The entry of 1334 Fasli has been characterised by the petitioners as incorrect entry and it has been contended that on the principle of acquiescence and estoppel no right can accrue to the contesting opposite party on the basis of an incorrect entry. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the rulings reported in Chandrapati and others v. Gunnu and others, (1986 AWC 709) and Sant Bux Singh v. Jt. Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and others, (1986 AWC 575) and has stressed that in accordance with these judgments, the impugned judgment of the appellate authority and the revisional court suffer from patent error of law and deserve to be quashed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgments. According to him, the entries of 1334 Fasli and onward are of importance being settlement entries. If the courts below have acted upon those entries, the impugned judgments cannot be termed as perverse and without any basis.;