JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of. India is directed against the order dated 26-4-72 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the order dated 26-7-71 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and order dated 26-5-71 passed by the Consolidation Officer. 2. The facts of the case are few and simple. The plot in Khata No. 95 was recorded in the name of Sri Ram and Ram Prakash as main tenants, at the time of Partal respondent no. 4 was found to be in possession over plot no. 163 and over plot no, 233-B and 312. Dalloo, respondent no. 7 was found to be in possession and he claimed sirdari rights, over the remaining plots, Babu Singh, husband of respondent no. 5 and Phul Singh, respondent no. 6 were found to be in possession. The persons found to be in possession over different plots, filed objections under Section 9-A (2) and claimed Sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act. 3. The petitioner alleged that the persons found in possession at the time of partal over different plots were incorrectly entered and they were neither in possession nor they have matured rights by adverse possession and their entries were fictitious any they are liable to be expunged. 4. The consolidation Officer by his order dated 26-5-71 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. However, the revision filed by the petitioner" was allowed only in respect of plot no. 371. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents who were found in possession over different plots at the time of Partal were not in possession for such a long period so as to mature sirdari rights and even the entries in their names were not continuously made. According to law no continuous possession of the trespasser can be presumed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner oral and documentary evidence have not been correctly considered. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that there are no merits in the writ petition. According to law no continuous possession of the trespasser can be presumed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner oral and documentary evidence have not been correctly considered. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner I find that there are no merits in the writ petition. Oral and documentary evidence as been appreciated by the consolidation authorities and inference has been drawn. Even the Deputy Director of Consolidation has made reference of the oral evidence and he has recorded a finding that the oral evidence is reliable and he has placed reliance upon the same. Even though there may be some discrepancy in the revenue paper entries, but that itself would not lead to an inference that the actual trespasser was not in possession in that particular year in which entries were not made in his name. But there is no case of the petitioner that in a particular year the contesting respondents were not in possession or that they left the possession, The petitioner also failed to land positive evidence to prove that the contesting respondents were not in continuous possession for at least 7 years so as to mature sirdari rights under Section 210 of the Act. 7. I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perfectly correct and they are based on approval of evidence on record. The oral and documentary evidence cannot be re appreciated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the subordinate authorities to consider and draw inference from the same. 8. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.