JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - In this Writ petition the petitioners claimed contenancy right with opposite party no. 5 and others. The claim of the petitioners has been negatived by all the consolidation authorities. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revisional court has patently erred in holding that the receipt contained in Annexure 1' attached with the writ petition did not prove the settlement with the plaintiffs along with the contesting opposite parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the observation of the revisional court is patently erroneous and it should be quashed. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has tried to refute the contentions by pointing out the observation made by the appellate authority and has contended that the Settlement with the petitioners has not been accepted by the appellate authority on the ground that the petitioners have failed to prove as to who was the Zamindar of the land in suit and the settlement with the tenure holders was done by the rightful person. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments attached with the writ petition I am not prepared to hold that the inference drawn by the authorities are patently erroneous or that can be termed as perverse in the facts and circumstances of the present case. When the petitioners were not recorded as tenure-holder, a heavy burden lay upon them to establish their claim. To my mind they have failed to establish the alleged settlement and the impugned judgments cannot be termed as patently erroneous. On the findings of fact recorded by the authorities concerned there is no patent error of law in the impugned judgment. The writ petition lacks merits. 5. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.