ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 4-7-1973. 2. The dispute relates to plot No. 1830/1 measuring 17 Biswas 18 Biswansis. The contesting opposite party Tulsi now represented by his heirs in the writ petition) was recorded as Sirdar over the disputed plot in the basic year. The petitioner Sri Nath (now represented by his heirs in the writ petition) had filed an objection claiming Bhumidhari right in the disputed plot on the allegations that the aforesaid Tulsi was not in possession over the disputed plot and that the petitioner had been in possession over the disputed plot since long, hence his name should be recorded as Bhumidhar over the same. 3. The contesting opposite party Tulsi had contested the claim of the petitioner on the allegations that he was sub-tenant of the disputed plot and had acquired adhivasi and sirdari right and that he had been in possession and that the petitioner had got his name recorded over the disputed plot wrongly and that the contesting opposite party had filed an application for correction of papers which had been rejected at the appellate stage in the year 1960 but that did not affect the right and claim of the contesting opposite party. 4. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 22-1-1972 and the appellate authority through its judgment dated 26-6-1972 (Annexures I and II) have found that the petitioner had acquired Bhumidhari right in the disputed land. The revisional court through its judgment dated 4-7-1973 reversed the judgments of the first two authorities and the claim of the contesting opposite party Tulsi has been recognized. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the revisional court has recorded perverse findings which need be quashed. According to him the revisional court has patently erred in observing that the petitioner's name could not be recorded in the remarks column in the years 1361 to 1363 Fasli. It has been emphasised that the revisional court has misconstrued the documentary evidence on record and has perversely held that the petitioner did not acquire fight in the disputed plot as recognised by the first two courts. 6. It has been emphasised that the revisional court has misconstrued the documentary evidence on record and has perversely held that the petitioner did not acquire fight in the disputed plot as recognised by the first two courts. 6. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no evidence to prove contract of sub-tenancy in favour of the opposite party No. 2 Tulsi, hence his claim was wrongly accepted by the revisional court and in this connection also the revisional court has perversely accepted the claim of the contesting opposite party. 7. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional court has not considered the oral evidence on record, hence its judgment deserves to be quashed. 8. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the revisional court has appraised the evidence on record and has arrived at a conclusion which cannot be characterised as perverse by any stretch of imagination. According to him the contesting opposite party was sub-tenant of the disputed plot before the date of vesting and acquired sirdari right in the same under the provisions of S. 20 read with S. 240 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He has also emphasised that the contesting opposite party Tulsi has been in possession over the disputed plot and the petitioner had got wrong entries in his favour which have rightly not been accepted by the revisional court. He has also suggested that the first two courts which gave judgment for the petitioner also did not rely upon the oral evidence in the case while accepting the claim of the petitioner. The oral evidence cannot belie the documentary evidence and the circumstantial evidence in this case and the revisional court has arrived at a correct conclusion which needs no interference by this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The revisional court is not quite correct in observing that the tenure-holder's name cannot be shown in the remarks column when he is found in possession over a disputed plot which is also recorded in possession of a sub-tenant in the year 1361F. 9. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The revisional court is not quite correct in observing that the tenure-holder's name cannot be shown in the remarks column when he is found in possession over a disputed plot which is also recorded in possession of a sub-tenant in the year 1361F. According to the provisions of para 87(5) of the U.P. Land Records Manual, before the date of vesting, it could be suggested that the tenure-holder's name could not be recorded in the remarks column but that is not true after the date of vesting. The aforesaid para has been deleted for the purposes of the area governed by the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and LR. Act. Para A.62 of the U.P. Land Records Manual casts duty upon the Patwari to make entries in accordance with the actual facts. The perusal of pars A.71 of the Land Records Manual indicates that a person other than recorded in columns 4 and 5 of the Khasra after the date of vesting if found in possession would be shown in the remarks column but it does not contain any positive direction that if the tenure-holder is really found in possession over a disputed plot which had been shown in the name of sub-tenants in a particular year, the tenure-holder would not be shown in the remarks column. To my mind, the reasoning given by the revisional court to discard the entries of 1361-62 Fasli in the present case is not correct. It is to be seen what would be its effect on the claims of the parties in the present case. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the ruling reported in1974 Unreported Rev. Cas. 594 Suraj Nath Pandey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, camp at Ghazipur and has contended that the revisional court acted illegally in discarding the entries in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid ruling has explained the scope of para. A 102 (C) of the U.P. Land Records Manual which was on the Statute Book between the year 1958 and 1965. In the present case the petitioner had approached the authorities with the allegations that the contesting opposite party was neither sub-tenant nor in possession over the disputed plot and that the petitioner continued in possession over the same as tenure-holder, namely Bhumidhar. In the present case the petitioner had approached the authorities with the allegations that the contesting opposite party was neither sub-tenant nor in possession over the disputed plot and that the petitioner continued in possession over the same as tenure-holder, namely Bhumidhar. It was not the case of the petitioner that the contesting opposite party was sub-tenant of the disputed plot before the date of vasting and that he had acquired forcible possession over it. In this view of the matter I think that the entries in favour of the petitioner in the year 1361-62 Fasli etc. were not correct. Due to the enforcement of U, P. Act No. 1 of 1951, it is well known that some of the tenure-holders in order to get their land from the possession of sub-tenants have tried to get wrong entries in their favour and to me this case appears as one of such instances. The materials on record do not indicate that the entries in favour of the petitioner tenure-holder were communicated to the person recorded in col. 5 of the Khasra, hence the aforesaid entries relating to the year 1361 F. onwards are not in accordance with paras A-80 and A-81 of the U.P. Land Records Manual as they stood in the year 1361 F. If the Patwari and kanoongo have failed in performing their duties regarding the entries of 1361-62 Fasli, I think no reliance can be placed on such entries in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot rely upon the entries of 1361-62 F. in view of the claim put forward by him. 11. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in 1977 Rev. Dec. 304 (BR), Chandra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. with a view to justify the reasoning of the revisional court to the effect that the tenure-holder could not be recorded in the remarks column in the year 1361-62 F. I do not find any categorical observation or finding to the effect that the tenure holder cannot be recorded in the remarks column if he was found in possession of the plot which stood in the name of a sub-tenant also in that year. 12. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the revisional court appears to me based on appraisal of documentary evidence on record. 12. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the revisional court appears to me based on appraisal of documentary evidence on record. It cannot be said in the circumstances of the present case that the revisional court has acted perversely in appraising the evidence. The entries in favour of the petitioner in most of the years are not strictly in accordance with Rules and the petitioner has failed to prove continuous entries in his favour for more than statutory period, hence his claim has righly been rejected by the revisional court. I am not prepared to hold that the findings recorded by the revisional court in the present case are perverse. 13. As regards the petitioner's contention that there is no evidence of contract of sub-tenancy, it appears to me that the disputed question has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. On the materials referred in the impugned judgment it appears that the contesting opposite party was recorded as sub-tenant for 8 years in 1359 F. extract though this extract has been disputed by the petitioner and the attack of the petitioner in this regard is in the realm of appraisal of evidence which cannot be entertained in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constn. Even if there is no oral evidence to prove the contract of sub-tenancy in favour of the contesting opposite party, Tulsi the entry in favour of the contesting opposite party showing him as a sub-tenant over the disputed plot would be a piece of evidence and I am not prepared to hold that the revisional court has patently erred in holding the contesting opposite party as sub-tenant of the disputed plot before the date of vesting and thereafter acquiring Adhivasi and Sirdari right in the same under the provision of U.P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. 14. As regards the oral evidence, it is noteworthy that the first two courts which gave judgments for the petitioner have also not referred to the oral evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not satisfied me that the oral evidence in the present case is of such a nature which vitiates the findings recorded by the revisional court. As regards the oral evidence, it is noteworthy that the first two courts which gave judgments for the petitioner have also not referred to the oral evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not satisfied me that the oral evidence in the present case is of such a nature which vitiates the findings recorded by the revisional court. Mere non-referring of the oral evidence by the revisional court would not be a sufficient ground for interferences in writ jurisdiction with the impugned judgment unless the petitioner succeeds in demonstrating that non-consideration of oral evidence has resulted in any patent error in arriving at the conclusions by the revisional court. In this case no such error has been pointed out to me. 15. In the result, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail. The writ petition is devoid of merits, hence I dismiss the writ petition, and direct the parties to bear their own costs.