JUDGMENT : K.P. SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Second) Basti dated 30.8.1971 whereby revision petitions filed by the Petitioners were dismissed. 2. In the basic year the disputed land was shown as Bhumidhari of Noor Mohammad. The Petitioners had filed an objection claiming the disputed land as public Kabristan. 3. The claim of the Petitioners was accepted by the consolidation officer through his judgment dated 11.2.1968. Aggrieved by the judgment of the consolidation officer Gaon Sabba as well as the recorded persons as Bhumidhare had preferred appeals and the appeal of the recorded persons was allowed and that of the Petitioner Gram Sabha was dismissed. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the Petitioners had no interest in the property and on the stand taken by the Petitioners Sunni Waqf Board could prefer objection and not the Gram Sabha, hence the appellate authority maintained the basic year entry and negatived the claim of the Petitioners. The Petitioners preferred two revision petitions which were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation through his judgment dated 30.8.1971. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. In paragraph 5 of the judgment of the revisional court it has been mentioned that the counsel for the applicant in revision had admitted that the disputed land did not belong to Gram Samaj, hence the objection filed by the Pradhan of the Gram Samaj was not a valid objection and ultimately the revisional court had dismissed the revision petitions. 5. In the present writ petition nothing has been said on behalf of the Petitioners that the statement made by the revisional court in its judgment was wrong. The Petitioners have challenged the judgments of the appellate authority and the revisional court without asserting that the statement of the revisional court was wrong. If the Petitioners were claiming right in the disputed land on the ground that it was public Kabristan, the proper remedy open to the Petitioners was by approaching the Civil Court. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide as to whether a particular piece of land is Kabristan or not. If the Petitioners were claiming right in the disputed land on the ground that it was public Kabristan, the proper remedy open to the Petitioners was by approaching the Civil Court. The consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide as to whether a particular piece of land is Kabristan or not. In the present case I find that the appellate authority and the revision court have maintained the basic year entry and according to them the disputed land is grove of the contesting opposite parties as recorded in the basic year. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Shri A.N. Bhargava has not been able to satisfy me that there is any error apparent on the face of the record nor hat he been able to convince me that the Petitioners have any interest in the disputed land and that the observation of the revisional court to the effect that the Learned Counsel for the applicant had not asserted that the Petitioners had any interest in the property in dispute was wrong. In such circumstances, I think that the Petitioners are not entitled to maintain the writ petition. 6. For the reasons given above the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.