JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- By means of this writ petition the petitioner challenges the judgment of the Deputy Director of consolidation, Basti as well as that of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 2. The claim of the petitioner is based on adverse and continuous possession for more than the statutory period. The Consolidation Officer gave judgment for the petitioner whereas the appellate Court and the revisional Court have given judgments against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the higher consolidation authorities have taken perverse view' on the evidence on record. According to him it has been established that the petitioner has been in possession over the disputed land since 1361 F. onwards, he has invited my attention to the Khasra extract filed by him. 4. None appears on behalf of the Contesting opposite parties. 5. I have examined the Khasra extract filed by the petitioner and they do not appear to have been prepared strictly in accordance with law. The entry of the name of the petitioner under varg IX is not in Consonance with the directions contained in the Land Records Manual, that is why the entries are against the provision of law and it cannot conclusively prove the possession of the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not in a position to say that the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law. The view taken by the higher consolidation authorities, appears to me a plausible view hence it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgment at the instance of the petitioner who is claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.