ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - In the basic year the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 7 in the present writ petition were recorded over the disputed khata No. 38. The petitioner claims exclusive right in the disputed khata and asserted that the names of the contesting opposite parties were recorded fictitiously with a view to avoid agricultural income tax. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments against the petitioner. Now the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the contesting opposite parties had not taken specific plea of acquiring right in the disputed khata on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence, and that in the earlier litigation the High Court had not recorded any, finding in favour of the contesting opposite parties acquiring right in the disputed khata on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence, yet the consolidation authorities have recognised the claim of the contesting opposite parties. He has also emphasised that necessary ingredients of estoppel and acquiescence have not been pleaded nor proved yet the consolidation authorities have recognised the claim of the contesting opposite parties. He has also contended that this High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence on record and cannot record any final finding with regard to the claims of the parties in view of the ruling reported in AIR 1965 SC 1055 . Gyarsi Bai v. Dhansukh Lal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1956 Cal 669 , Smt. Pankajini Devi v. Sudhir Dutta; AIR 1966 SC 605 Ambika Prasad Thakur v. Ram Ekbal Rai; and AIR 1967 SC 591 Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rai v. Valluri Jagannadha Rao. 2. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In my opinion it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgments of the consolidation authorities at the instance of the petitioner. It has been contended before me that the revisional court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the names of the contesting opposite parties were added to the Khata in question with a view to avoid agricultural income tax, hence the petitioner's claim should be examined and answered by this Court on merits. 3. It has been contended before me that the revisional court did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the names of the contesting opposite parties were added to the Khata in question with a view to avoid agricultural income tax, hence the petitioner's claim should be examined and answered by this Court on merits. 3. It is note-worthy that despite the findings recorded by the revisional court that the admission of the opposite parties to the disputed khata was not with a view to avoid agricultural income tax rather it was a bona fide admission, the petitioner has taken a stand in para 13 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit to the effect that the application to Tahsildar was a device adopted by the petitioner to save himself from agricultural income tax on large land holding. Since the petitioner is adhering to his plea I think the conduct of the petitioner is not such as to entitle him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If on the stand taken by the petitioner he had admitted contesting opposite parties as co-tunure holders of the disputed khata with a view to evade agricultural income tax he cannot be heard in writ jurisdiction to say that the admission was wrong. 4. It is true that in the earlier litigation High Court had not accepted the claim of the contesting opposite parties based on estoppel and acquiescence rather it had remanded the case to the court for deciding the question, but on the finding of fact that the contesting opposite parties have continued in possession over the khata in question and have indulged in various litigation's, it is evident that on the representation of the petitioner the contesting opposite parties have asserted their right to the disputed khata and have indulged in spending a lot to save their interest. The claim of the contesting opposite parties to the disputed khata has been recognised by the consolidation authorities on the basis of admission of the petitioner contained in the earlier litigation and the finding about possession of the contesting opposite parties does not appear to be based on no evidence in the circumstances of the present case, hence the claim of the contesting opposite parties has been rightly recognised by the consolidation authorities liven if the impugned judgments may not be technically correct at least they are not patently erroneous in the circumstances of the present case. There is enough evidence to support the claim of the contesting opposite parties in the shape of admission of the petitioner and also in view of the possession of the contesting opposite parties over the disputed khata. 5. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.