(1) THE appellant claims to be a pattadar in respect of Survey No. 117 admeasuring 16 acres and 23 guntas which has been placed under acquisition. The High court after taking into account all the relevant oral and documentary evidence has recorded a finding to the effect that the appellant has failed to establish her claim to the property in question in the proceedings u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The claim of the appellant is based on a patta alleged to have been granted to her by the court of Wards in about 1936. But no such patta is forthcoming. The name of the appellant was not recorded in the revenue records. It appears that the name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue records from 1953-54. According to him the land has been under cultivation from the time of his father and grandfather. The High court has taken the view that assuming that a patta was granted in favour of the appellant it was in respect of land admeasuring 11 acres 35 guntas whereas the land to which the appellant is staking a claim is to the extent of 16 acres 23 guntas. The appellant is unable to explain how 11 acres and 23 guntas became 16 acres and 23 guntas. So also the appellant is unable to establish that the patta which was granted in her favour was in respect of Survey No. 117. The correspondence on which reliance has been placed refers to a patta in respect of Survey No. 56/1 and not to Survey No. 117. No authentic record has been placed on record to show that what was originally Survey No. 56/1 has now become a new Survey No. 117. These are all questions of fact and the High Court has recorded a finding adverse to the appellant. Even now the appellant is unable to show from the evidence on record that the land undei dispute comprised in Survey No. 117 corresponds to former Survey No. 56/1 on the basis of any authentic record. So also she is unable to explain how 11 acres and 23 guntas became 16 acres and 23 guntas. The identity of the land is not established with reference to either the size or the survey number. Under the circumstances the view taken by the High court cannot be faulted. So also she is unable to explain how 11 acres and 23 guntas became 16 acres and 23 guntas. The identity of the land is not established with reference to either the size or the survey number. Under the circumstances the view taken by the High court cannot be faulted. The decision rendered by the High court must therefore be confirmed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.