JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgments of the consolidation authorities. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to the compromise in the civil suit the petitioners should get half share in the disputed land. It has been emphasised that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in observing that the dispute in the civil suit related to the property belonging to Sohan in the pedigree given in the judgment of the revisional court. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgments. 4. I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition. I am not satisfied that the subject matter of the present litigation was the subject matter of civil litigation. In the civil litigation only plots are mentioned, whereas in the litigation before the consolidation authorities several khatas have been mentioned. The very circumstances that the dispute between the parties arose on the death of Sohan before the mutation court and thereafter before the civil court ; I am not prepared to hold that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in observing that the dispute before the civil court was related to the property of Sohan. In this view of the matter I do not find that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in determining the share of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners could succeed only if they had satisfied this Court that all the khatas in dispute before the consolidation authorities were subject matter of litigation in the civil suit. The portion relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 4.6.1974 reads as below ; ".......Dawey me sambhawatah Pakshon se sambandhit puri araji likhi gayee hai. Chunki yeh dawa Sohan ki mrityu ke bad us-se sambandhit araji ka likha gaya tha Isliye parinamtah yeh samjha jayega ki yeh sulahnama us araji se sambandhit tha, jo ki Sohan ke hissey ki thi aur isi dristikonr ko apnate huae bandobast adhikari chakbandi ne vivadit khata me jo hissa Laga ? Woh sahi pratit hota hai," 6. Chunki yeh dawa Sohan ki mrityu ke bad us-se sambandhit araji ka likha gaya tha Isliye parinamtah yeh samjha jayega ki yeh sulahnama us araji se sambandhit tha, jo ki Sohan ke hissey ki thi aur isi dristikonr ko apnate huae bandobast adhikari chakbandi ne vivadit khata me jo hissa Laga ? Woh sahi pratit hota hai," 6. Before me it has been strenuously contended that all the properties belonging to the family were subject-matter of the civil suit, but the expression used by the revisional court that probably all the properties were mentioned in the earlier civil litigation, throws doubt on the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. If the compromise does not deal with all the properties it is difficult to say that the determination of share by the appellate authority and the revisional court suffer from patent error of law. 7. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed Parties are directed to bear their own cots.