Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Orders dated 31.07.2013 and 01.08.2013 passed in this writ petition on the order sheet are quoted below: "31.07.2013: List revised. No-one appears on behalf of respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he is not ready to argue the case today. Put up tomorrow (1.8.2013) just after fresh. 01.08.2013: Heard Sri D.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for contesting respondent neither appeared yesterday nor today. Judgment reserved." This writ petition arises out of a title dispute raised before consolidation courts. Dispute relates to agricultural land of khata No.117. In the basic year when consolidation started the name of Sant Prasad was recorded in the revenue records. Objections were filed by Ram Udit Singh, opposite party No.3, Ram Anand Singh since deceased and survived by his son Gyan Singh, opposite party No.4 and Raj Bahadur Singh. Another set of objections was filed in respect of the same land by petitioners, Shitla Prasad and Rajdeo (first cousins). Consolidation Officer (C.O.), Kadipur District Sultanpur decided the matter which had been registered as Case No.9291 and four other cases of 1971-72, Udit Vs. Sant Prasad and others on 13.03.1973. The C.O. directed that the names of petitioners must be entered in the revenue record after scoring off the name of Sant Prasad. Against the said order, respondents No.4 to 6 filed Appeal No.401, Udit Vs. Sant Prasad. The appeal was decided by the A.S.O.C., Sultanpur on 26.08.1975. Appeal was allowed in part. It was directed that all the plots of khata No.117 except plots No.1456, 896 and 1669 should be entered in the names of the appellants (opposite parties No.4 to 6 in this writ petition) as they had established their right thereupon. In respect of the above three excepted plots, appeal was dismissed meaning thereby that on the said three plots, right of petitioners was upheld. Against the said order, petitioners filed revision being Revision No.4505, Assistant Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur dismissed the revision on 06.03.1979, hence this writ petition. The case of contesting opposite parties was that Sant Prasad was Zamindar and he had executed registered kashtkari marusi dawami patta in their favour. Against the said order, petitioners filed revision being Revision No.4505, Assistant Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur dismissed the revision on 06.03.1979, hence this writ petition. The case of contesting opposite parties was that Sant Prasad was Zamindar and he had executed registered kashtkari marusi dawami patta in their favour. The case of the petitioners was that property was of Dwarika who executed patta of some of the plots in favour of the petitioner No.2, Rajdeo and rest of the plots were permitted to be ploughed/cultivated by the petitioner No.2, Rajdeo and Shiv Kumar Singh father of Shitla Prasad, petitioner No.1. By reading the impugned judgments it appears that the three plots regarding which appeal was dismissed and petitioners' right was held established., thereupon were the plots, which were given on patta by Dwarika to the petitioners. Dwarika and Sant Prasad, both were Zamindars. I do not find any error in the finding that petitioners had not been able to establish their right over any plot of the khata in dispute except the aforesaid three plots regarding which patta had been executed in their favour. Patta in favour of contesting opposite parties was executed by Sant Prasad on 22.07.1951. Date of patta in favour of petitioner No.2 is not mentioned. When patta of three plots had expressly been granted in favour of petitioner No.2, there was absolutely no occasion for orally permitting the petitioner No.2 and his uncle to plough and cultivate the other plots. First of all, such oral permission cannot be presumed particularly when in 1356 and 1359 Fasli khasras names of petitioners were not there. Secondly, when written patta was executed in respect of some plots in case the Zamindar had intended to give other plots, also to the petitioner No.2 and his uncle, i.e. father of petitioner No.1, then there was absolutely no reason for excluding and not mentioning those plots in the patta. In respect of the land in dispute proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. had also been taken. For few years names of petitioners over some of the plots had also been entered in the revenue records under Varg (column)-9 of the khatauni (occupant without consent of the owner). It was done in 1372 and 1374 Fasli (1964-1966 A.D.). Copy of khasra of 1367 Fasli was filed by the petitioner showing entry of petitioners' name over some plots. Similar was the position in khasras 1371-1372 Fasli. It was done in 1372 and 1374 Fasli (1964-1966 A.D.). Copy of khasra of 1367 Fasli was filed by the petitioner showing entry of petitioners' name over some plots. Similar was the position in khasras 1371-1372 Fasli. However, certified copies of khasras were not filed. Copies issued by lekhpal were filed and lekhpal was not examined to prove the same. In this regard, S.O.C. and D.D.C. held that for a certain period the property in dispute remained in possession of the supurdar under order passed by court in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and thereafter some of the plots were released in favour of the contesting opposite parties. Thereafter, placing reliance upon Akhtar Mohd. Khan Vs. Bhariya Cooperative Farming Socieity Ltd. 1973 RD 250, it was held that possession of supurdar is possession of the owner, who is ultimately found to be entitled to possess the same. This view is perfectly in accordance with the authorities of Privy Council and Supreme Court reported in Raja Rajgan Maharaja Jagatjeet Singh Vs. Raja Pratap Bahadur Singh, AIR 1942 PC 47 and Deokuer & Anr. v. Sheoprasad Singh And Ors., AIR 1966 SC 359 . Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by S.O.C. and D.D.C. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. _____________