JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute relates to Khata No. 89 of village Pipra Bhawanipur, pargana Aldeymau, tahsil Qadipur, district Sultanpur, which was recorded in the basic year in the name of opposite party no. 4 The petitioner alongwith opposite parties 7 and 8 filed objection claiming cotenancy rights in the said Khata The objections were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 8.10.70, against which the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 8.2.71. The petitioner then filed a revision which was dismissed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Rule 111 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The petitioner thereafter filed writ petition no. 566 of 1972 in this court which was allowed on 28.4.78 and the case was remanded to the opposite party no. 1 for a fresh decision of the revision. 2. The revision was heard afresh by the opposite party no. 1 and was dismissed by the order dated 30.8.80 which is contained in annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition in which it has been contended that a Marfat entry existed in his name in Khasra 1359 F but the effect of that entry had not been taken into consideration by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation who had disposed of the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was specifically argued before the Assistant Director of Consolidation that the petitioner would be entitled to Adhivasi and thereafter Sirdari rights over the land in dispute on the basis of the Marfat entry existing in the year 1359 F. in his favour. This question was negatived by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and he held that 'Marfat' entry would not confer upon the petitioner Adhivasi or Sirdari rights. This entry was thus taken into consideration and the contention to the contrary made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. 4. The contention that the Marfat entry in 1359F Khasra would confer upon the petitioner Adhivasi and Sirdari rights is also not correct. 5. This entry was thus taken into consideration and the contention to the contrary made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. 4. The contention that the Marfat entry in 1359F Khasra would confer upon the petitioner Adhivasi and Sirdari rights is also not correct. 5. Marfat is an Arabic word which translated into English would mean through or on behalf of. The person, therefore, in whose favour there exists a Marfat entry, cannot be said to be in possession in his own rights. His possession on that basis would not, therefore, mature into Adhivasi or Sirdari rights. 6. The orders passed by the consolidation authorities, which have been impugned in the present writ petition, do not suffer from any legal infirmity. 7. No other point was pressed. 8. The petition lacks merit and is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (Petition dismissed)