JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2G-6-73 the question involved is whether the petitioners are sirdars of the land in dispute or is pokhari of the Gaon Sabha. It appears that the petitioners were recorded as sirdars in the basic year Khatauni. The objections were filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the Forest Department claiming that the land in dispute is a pokhari and the petitioners have no concern with the same. 2. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the Gaon Sabha. An appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was allowed and the land in dispute was declared as pokhari and the names of the petitioners were ordered to be expunged. A revision was filed against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, (Consolidation) by the petitioners which was dismissed. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid Orders before this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. According to the case of the petitioners in a previous suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the petitioners were declared as sirdars and on the basis of that decree they were recorded as sirdars in the revenue papers. Subsequently, the suit was abated by the appellate/revisional court on erroneous grounds. Therefore, the names of the petitioners could not be expunged. 4. According to the case of the contesting respondent the names of the petitioners were recorded on the basis of an order which was subsequently vacated. Therefore, the entry made on the basis of that order was also liable to be expunged. 5. From the entries referred to in the judgments of the consolidation authorities it appears that the land in dispute was recorded as banjar pokhari in 1359 Fasli before the date of vesting of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the Khataunis of 1366 Fasli, 1367F, Fasli and 1369 Fasli the land in dispute is recorded as bhita and Phokhari. Therefore, on the basis of these entries the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have declared the land as pokhari of which the respondent No. 3 is not sirdar. In the Khataunis of 1366 Fasli, 1367F, Fasli and 1369 Fasli the land in dispute is recorded as bhita and Phokhari. Therefore, on the basis of these entries the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have declared the land as pokhari of which the respondent No. 3 is not sirdar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which may justify interference in writ jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.