JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J.- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and persued the impugned order dated 23rd July, 1983 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Banda. Opposite party No. 4 Ram Sajiwan was recorded as tenure-holder of the plot in dispute in the basis year record. Smt. Kailashiya the petitioner, filed objection claiming Sirdari rights on tho basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation officer, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, dismissed the objection of the petitioner holding that she had not perfected rights by adverse possession and that the entries in her name in 1359F and onwards were not reliable. Petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15-9-1982 and her name was ordered to be recorded as tenure-holder over the land in dispute after expunging the name of opposite party No. 4. Against that order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, opposite party No. 4 preferred revision which was allowed by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation, vide order dated 23rd July, 1983. He has set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and agreeing with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, has restored the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assistant Director of Consolidation erred in allowing the revision of the opposite party and in rejecting the claim of the petitioner who was held to be Sirdar tenant by the Settlement Officer Consolidation having perfected rights by adverse possession. Learned counsel urged that the entries in revenue records which were believed by the Settlement-Officer Consolidation have been wrongly dis-believed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. He has thus contended that the order passed by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation deserves to be quashed. I am unable to agree with this contention. I have persued the impugned order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and I find that he has given good reasons for rejecting the entries in the name of the petitioner which were made in the year 1359F. and in subsequent, years. He has observed that the entries in the name of the petitioner were made quite against the rules and were fictitiously made in her favour. I do not find any error in that finding. 3. and in subsequent, years. He has observed that the entries in the name of the petitioner were made quite against the rules and were fictitiously made in her favour. I do not find any error in that finding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the opposite party had accepted the possession of the petitioner, and, as such, petitioner should have been held to be tenure-holder of the land in dispute. The Assistant Director of Consolidation has referred to the statement of Ram Sajiwan opposite party No. 4 and has observed that no such admission appears in his statement. 4. Learned counsel in the end contended that the Asstt. Director of Consolidation has not discussed the oral evidence while allowing the revision of the other side. The Assistant Director of Consolidation after discussing the documentary evidence agreed with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and, as such, I do not find any error that has been committed by him. A perusal of the orders indicate that the petitioner had got entries manipulated in her name in 1359F. as well as in subsequent years. No P.A. 10 was served on the opposite party. The Assistant Director of Consolidation has observed that the class IX entry also does not bear the date of the order of Supervisor Qanoongo. In these circumstances I do not find that the petitioner has come with clean hands in this case in leading evidence in support of her claim. The Assistant Director of Consolidation, in my opinion, has not committed any error in rejecting her claim and has rightly held that she has not perfected her rights by adverse possession. In this view of the matter I find no error in the order passed by the opposite party No. 1 so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed in limine.