S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plots in dispute are 41/1, 41/2, 41/3,42/1 and 45 situated in Village Dhondhaipur, Tappa Khuriyan, Pargana Nagar West Tehsil Harraiya District Basti. In the basic-year the name of Sheo Prasad (respondent no. 3) was recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner Shiva Shanker filed an objection under section 9 (A) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking that the name of the respondent no. 3 be deleted and in his place the name of the petitioner be substituted, on the allegation that the land in dispute had come down to him through a sale deed before the date of vesting and. that he had planted trees thereon and consequently he was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It was further alleged by him that his possession over the plots in dispute in any case was adverse to the respondent no. 3 and as such he perfected his rights by adverse-possession and consequently he should be recorded as a sirdar in place of the respondent no. 3. The Consolidation Officer by his judgment dated 30th August, 1971 allowed the objection. The case of the petitioner that he had purchased the land in dispute through a sale-deed was not accepted but on the basis of the entries in the revenue-records for the years 1370F. onwards it was found by the Consolidation Officer that since the petitioner was recorded in Varg-9 in the years mentioned above, he has perfected his rights by adverse possession and as such he became sirdar of the plots in dispute.
(2.) IT may be mentioned here that in respect of certain other plots, objections were filed by persons other than parties to this petition. All these objections were decided by the order dated 30th August, 1971 by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently four appeals were filed against the said order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the present petition, however, we are only concerned with appeal no. 1245, which was filed by respondent no. 3 Sheo Prasad. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by judgment dated 12-10-1972 allowed the appeal of Sheo Prasad and directed that his name shall continue to be recorded and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside, The relevant portion of the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is quoted below : " Sheo Shanker has been shown in adverse possession of these plots also from 1370F. to 1374F. and from 1375F. he has been shown as tenant of class 9. I find that these adverse possession entries also are against the provision of Land Records Manual, because the Lekhpal has not given any P.A.-10 number, while recording the adverse possession of Sheo Shanker over these plots. " Against the order dated 12-10-1972, a revision was filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation by Shiva Shanker. This revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation on 11-2-1974. The view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was upheld by the Deputy Director Consolidation. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12-10-1972 and 11-2-1974 by means of the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri S. D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has very ably argued this petition and has brought to my notice all the relevant provisions of the Land Records Manual. He has raised the following two contentions before me.
(3.) THE first contention is that para A-102-C of the Land Records Manual was deleted, with effect from, July 31, 1965 and was substituted. After the deletion of para A-102-C, the law laid down by this Court that the fact that form P.A.-10 has not been issued or that there is no mention of the issue of a form P.A.-10 in the relevant entries ceased to have any importance and the consolidation courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not relying upon the entries of Varg-9 in favour of the petitioner, merely because there was no evidence to show that Form P.A.-10 had been issued or that there was any mention of form P.A.10 in the said entries. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the revenue entries were mere pieces of evidence to establish that the petitioner's possession was adverse to that of the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner had further led oral evidence to establish his adverse possession. Since the courts below had not considered the oral evidence led by the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation against the petitioner are vitiated in-law.;