JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgments of the Consolidation authorities whereby the original opposite party no. 4 Indal's claim has been recognised in the disputed land. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that in the basic year the petitioners were recorded as tenure-holders and the contesting opposite party Indal now succeeded by his heir was recorded in possession in class 9. The petitioner claimed bhumidhari right whereas the contesting opposite party Indal had claimed sirdari right. 3. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments for the contesting opposite party Indal. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 22 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the disputed property was under attachment, hence the consolidation authorities have patently erred in giving judgments for Indal. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment. 6. During the course of arguments it has not been disputed before me that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were recorded as tenure-holders on the basis of an order passed by the Tahasildar which was set aside in appeal. The question Taised on behalf of the contesting opposite party before me is whether the petitioners can be treated as tenure-holders of a disputed land in the circumstances of this case. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted that the petitioners nos. 1 to 4 are transferees of the persons who were wrongly recorded as tenure-holders of the disputed land and the father of petitioners nos. 5 and 6 Abhiraj was wrongly recorded as tenure-holder on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar, hence the petitioners are not at all entitled to press the present writ petition. 7. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgments. I do not think that the revisional court has patently erred in holding that the contesting opposite party Indal had been in possession over the disputed land for more than statutory period and that the transferees of petitioners nos. 1 to 4 as well as the father of petitioners nos. 5 and 6 were wrongly recorded as tenure-holder of the disputed land on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar. 1 to 4 as well as the father of petitioners nos. 5 and 6 were wrongly recorded as tenure-holder of the disputed land on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar. To my mind when the finding of fact recorded by the revisional court is accepted, the petitioners or the persons recorded as tenure-holders in pursuance of the order of the Tahsildar acquired no tenancy right in the disputed land. On the finding of fact I think that the petitioners have no case to press in the present writ petition. 8. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.