ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition the dispute between the parties centres round plot No. 2422 measuring 3 bigha 16 Biswa 3 Dhors. 2. In the basic year the petitioners were shown as Bhumidhar of the disputed land whereas the contesting opposite party Ram Janam now represented by his heirs, was shown in possession in Zaman 9. The petitioners had claimed bhumidhari right in the disputed land and prayed for expunction of the name of Ram Janam in Zaman 9 whereas the aforesaid Ram Janam had claimed Sirdari right in the disputed land. 3. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment D/- 23-12-1971 accepted the claim of the petitioners whereas in appeal the aforesaid Ramjanam succeeded in getting sirdari right in the disputed land as is evident from Annexure II attached with the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners preferred a revision petition which was partly allowed by the revisional court through its judgment D/- 19-2-1973. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court 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 finding regarding the disputed land having lost the character of grove land Is vitiated in law as it has not been established that the petitioners had abandoned the idea of planting trees over the land in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the disputed land has been shown as grove in revenue records, hence the same should have been treated as such and the revisional court has patently erred in recognising the claim of opposite party as sirdar in a portion of the disputed land. It has been very much emphasised that the disputed land did not lose the character of grove and utmost the opposite party should be treated as an Asami and not sirdar of any portion of the disputed land. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that on a finding of fact that the disputed land had lost the character of grove qua the portion in which the opposite party has been recognised as Sirdar this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact and the claim of the contesting opposite party should be maintained as decided by the revisional court. It has been emphasised that the contesting opposite party and his predecessor-in-interest had been in possession over the disputed land since 1358 F. hence their claim was rightly accepted by the revisional court. 6. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the consolidation authorities have patently erred in treating a portion of the disputed plot No. 2422 as a cultivable land. According to him there is no material evidence on record to suggest as to who were the owner of the disputed land on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. According to the revenue entries the whole plot No. 2422 should be treated as grove and on the finding that the opposite party was in possession over a portion of the disputed land as sub-tenant, the opposite party should not have been treated as Sirdar of the remaining area. 7. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1963 All 413 Shiv Sahai v. Har Nandan and has suggested that because there existed crops over a portion of the disputed plot, that did not mean that the disputed land had lost the character of grove. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. It is evident that plot No. 2422 has been recorded as Bagh Mazrua. On the materials on record, the revisional court has indicated that one Bigha of the disputed plot retains the character of grove and the remaining had lost the character of grove. It is true that the revisional court has not examined the position of the plot in relation to the date immediately preceding the date of vesting but nothing has been shown to me as to the nature of the disputed land on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting. Since the disputed land has been shown as Bagh Mazrua and the revisional court in the light of the evidence on record has confined the area of grove to one Bigha, I am unable to say that the revisional court has patently erred in arriving at its conclusions. Since the disputed land has been shown as Bagh Mazrua and the revisional court in the light of the evidence on record has confined the area of grove to one Bigha, I am unable to say that the revisional court has patently erred in arriving at its conclusions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not cited any ruling to the effect that if as a matter of fact the trees over a major portion of the disputed land have been cut and thereby that portion had lost the character of grove, yet it would be treated as grove unless it had been established that the planter of grove had abandoned the idea of replanting trees. Rather, in 1938 RD 922 Chandra Bhan Singh v. Hubba a learned single Judge of this court has arrived at a conclusion that the grove had lost its character in view of the area and number of the trees hence it is difficult for me to hold that the revisional court has patently erred in arriving at the conclusion that a major portion of the disputed land had lost the character of grove. 9. If the finding about a portion of the disputed land having lost character of grove is accepted, the contesting opposite party would acquire Sirdari right on the basis of his possession either as a sub-tenant or as a trespasser. From both the angles, the contesting opposite party would acquire Sirdari right in the disputed portion. However, in the circumstances of the present case and on the materials attached with the writ petition, it is difficult to say that the revisional court has arrived at patently erroneous conclusions. If the entry regarding Bagh Mazrua is related to the portion of the disputed plot in the present writ petition, the impugned judgment cannot be characterised as patently erroneous. 10. To my mind by the impugned judgment both the parties have got a portion of the disputed plot, hence substantial justice has been done between the parties and the impugned judgment does not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. 10. To my mind by the impugned judgment both the parties have got a portion of the disputed plot, hence substantial justice has been done between the parties and the impugned judgment does not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners had succeeded by placing materials on record about the nature of the disputed land being grove on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, the result might have been different but in the absence of any positive evidence to that effect I am not prepared to hold that the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law. 11. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.