ORDER K. P. Singh, J. -This writ petition is against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur dated 22-7-1974 whereby the petitioners revision petition has been dismissed. 2. In the basic year the disputed plot No. 584 measuring 0.33 was recorded in the names of contesting opposite parties Lotan and Gubbi as bhumidhari. The petitioner No. 1 Ramdev and Ram Samujh father of petitioner No. 2 had filed an objection with the allegations that the disputed plot was their sir and their ancestor Harihar Dutt had mortgaged the aforesaid plot to Shital Tewari and the mortgage had been redeemed on 17-8-1949, and thereafter they continued in possession, hence their names should be recorded over the disputed plot and the names of the recorded persons should f be expunged. 3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 18-11-1972 accepted the claim of the petitioners and ordered the expunction. of the names of the contesting opposite parties. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Consolidation Officer the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition had filed an appeal which was allowed and the names of the petitioners had been expunged. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority the petitioners preferred a revision petition which has also been dismissed. Now the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have misread the evidence on record and they have ignored the statement of Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties, hence their findings are vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel has emphasised before me that when Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 had made a statement disowning any right and title in the disputed land, the same should have been accepted as binding upon the contesting opposite parties and in not doing so the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred and their judgment should be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to him the appellate authority and the revisional court have appraised the circumstances involved in the present case and have arrived at correct conclusions, hence their judgments should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It has also been contended that the statement of Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties was rightly ignored by the appellate authority and the revisional court in the present case. The claim of the contesting opposite parties has been rightly accepted by the higher authorities and that the petitioners claim is against the truth, hence the same should not be accepted. 6. I have examined contentions raised on behalf of the parties. I find that the Consolidation Officer while recognising the claim of the petitioners has relied upon the statement of Mangaru dated 15-3-60 whereby he had indicated that his name was wrongly recorded over the disputed area. The appellate authority has expressed itself in para 3 of its judgment in the following words:- "....... Ramdev ke taraf se ek bayan ki nakal dakhil ki gayee hai. Jisme Mangaru ne kaha hai ki is par mera kabja nahin hai. Yeh nakal kisi nyayik record ki nahin hai aur na is par koi ticket adi laga huaa hai, Aur na hi is bayan ko Ram Dev ne apne apatti me jikra kiya hai aur na is kism ka koi case liya gaya hai." The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also expressed himself in the following words :- "Nigrani-karta ne Mangaru ki bayan par jyada jor diya lekin is bayan ke rebut karne ke liye vipakshi ko 'aw-asar nahin mila. Iske atirikt is bayan par purn rup se vishwas nahin kiya ja sakta. Kyonki yed pata nahin ki kin paristhitiyon ke bich yeh bayan huwa. Is bayan me lakhapal ki diary aur tithi ka varnan nahin hai. Sathhisath yeh bayan kisi mukadme se sambandhit nahin pratit hota hai, aur isme jirah adi ki koi jikra nahin hai. Is prakar Indraj ke adhar par nigrani karta dwara prastut kiye gaye Rehan-Namey ke adhar par vivadit bhumi ka dawa nirarthak sidh hota hai." 7. Is bayan me lakhapal ki diary aur tithi ka varnan nahin hai. Sathhisath yeh bayan kisi mukadme se sambandhit nahin pratit hota hai, aur isme jirah adi ki koi jikra nahin hai. Is prakar Indraj ke adhar par nigrani karta dwara prastut kiye gaye Rehan-Namey ke adhar par vivadit bhumi ka dawa nirarthak sidh hota hai." 7. It is true that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly observed that there is no mention of date and diary of the Lekhpal, but other comments made by the revisional court appear to me as correct and justified. 8. It is noteworthy that on materials on record Mangaru, father of the contesting opposite parties had been recorded as tenant of the disputed land from 1330 F. The theory of mortgage set up by the petitioners is of 17th November, 1923 which means 1331 F. As the tenancy of the father of the contesting opposite parties had started from the year 1330 F, his claim cannot be negatived by any theory of mortgage at the instance of the petitioners. The theory of mortgage has been rightly not accepted by the revisional court for the reasons given in its judgment. 9. No doubt some difficulty arises due to the statement of Mangaru in the present case, but it cannot be said that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in ignoring the aforesaid statement in the circumstances of the present case. Annexures 5 and 6 attached to the writ petition are statements of Mangaru relied upon by the petitioners and the .extract of Khatauni of the year 1359 F. which records relevant entry. It would be proper to quote paragraph 84 of the Land Records Manual which indicates how the surrender or dispossession of recorded tenants should be noted by the Lekhpal. Para 84. (a) (i): If at the time of partal, the lekhpal finds that a person whose name has not been previously recorded is in cultivating possession of the holding or any part thereof which is recorded in the name of another person in column 5 of the khasra, the lekhpal shall enquire how such person has obtained, and how the recorded person lost possession. (ii) to (iv) ...... (ii) to (iv) ...... (v) If the lekhpal finds that such person does not fall in any of the classes mentioned in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, and the person recorded in column 5 belongs, in Agra, to class 10 of 10-A, and in Avadh to class 5 or 5-A of the khatauni, the lekhpal will substitute for the recorded person the name of the actual occupier in column 5 in red ink. But if the person recorded in column 5 is a tenant of any class other than those or is a grove holder, or a grantee under class II in Agra or class 6 in Avadh, the lekhpal shall follow the procedure laid down in sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) below :- (b) If possession has been given up by the tenant, grove-holder or grantee after he has served the landholder with a registered notice of his intention to surrender or in pursuance of an order of court, the lekhpal shall subject to the provisions of paragraphs 84-A and 84-B, expunge from column 5 the name of the previously recorded tenant, grove-holder or grantee and record therein in red ink, the name and particulars of the person in possession with the appropriate class according to the heading of the khatauni. (c) If the tenant, grove-holder or grantee says that he has orally surrendered the holding or part thereof, and the surrender does not offend against the provisions of paragraphs 84-A and 84-B the lekhpal shall record his statement in his diary and take his signature or thumb impression therein. The Lekhpal shall then make a provisional entry in red ink in the remarks column of his Khasra "Ghair Qabiz Dawedar Qabza Fulan" and also note therein the date on 4 which possession has been lost. As soon as possible thereafter, the lekhpal will inquire from the land-holder whether he has accepted the surrender and shall record in the diary his statement also, taking the signature or thumb-impression of the person making it against the entry of the statement of the tenant, grove-holder or grantee relating to the alleged surrender a reference will be given in red ink to the date and page of the diary on, which the landholders statement is recorded. If the landholder has accepted the surrender the lekhpal shall expunge from column 5, the name of the previously recorded tenant, grove-holder or grantee and enter therein the name of the person in possession with necessary particulars and the appropriate class according to the headings of the khatauni. The provisional "Ghair Qabiz Dawedar Qabza" entry shall then be expunged from the remarks column of the khasra and a reference given thereunder of the date and page of the diary on which the statement of such tenant, grove-holder or grantee is recorded. (d) If the landholder does not accept the surrender or the tenant or grove-holder or grantee, who has lost possession, says that he has not surrendered the holding or any part thereof, the entry in column 5, will remain as it was in the previous year and the person in possession will be shown in column 6 of the khasra with the words, "Qabiz Dawedar" added after his name. The provisional "Ghair Wabiz Dawedar Qabza" entry, if any, shall then be expunged from the remarks column of the khasra and the person in possession subsequently entered in class 20 or class 12 of part II of the khatauni according as the matter relates to Agra or Avadh. The lekhpal shall also enter in his diary the fact of his having recorded the person in possession in column 6 of the khasra and against this entry take the signature of both the recorded tenant and the person in possession." 10. In my opinion the Lekhpal has not complied with the provisions of para 84 of the Land Records Manual, hence the statements of Mangaru relied upon by the petitioners and the extract of 1359 F. (Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition) cannot be relied upon in support of the petitioners claim. When the aforesaid documents are excluded from consideration the petitioners cannot substantiate their claim. The Consolidation Officer had relied upon the statement of Mangaru. while recognising the claim of the petitioners and in my opinion he had erred in relying upon that statement when the appellate authority and the revisional court have discarded that statement and have negatived the claim of the petitioners, I think they have not patently erred in the circumstances of the present case. while recognising the claim of the petitioners and in my opinion he had erred in relying upon that statement when the appellate authority and the revisional court have discarded that statement and have negatived the claim of the petitioners, I think they have not patently erred in the circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy me that the impugned judgment suffers from any mistake of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. 11. In the result, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.