Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) In the basic year the respondents 3 to 9 were the recorded tenants. The name r the petitioner was entered in Varg 9. Two Ejections were filed before the Consolidation Officer. One by the petitioner who claims to have matured rights by adverse possession and the other by the respondents 3 to 9 who prayed for expunging the entry in Varg 9. Before the Consolidation Officer the petitioner filed Khasra extract and also adduced oral evidence, which included his own statement and the statement of Komal. In support of their case the respondents also led some oral evidence. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of the petitioner and allowed those of the respondents 3 to 9. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The respondents 3 to 9 preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. As regards the Khasra extract filed by the petitioner the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the entries of possession of the petitioner were not in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual and hence could not be relied upon.
(2.) I have heard Sri S.L. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and S/Sri V.B. Khare and A.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) One only submission was made by the petitioner's Counsel that some documentary evidence, irrigation slips and extract of khasra adduced by the petitioner were not considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation no doubt has given good ground for holding that the Khasra entries could not be relied upon as they were not made accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual and were not backed by issuance of P.A. Form 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after recording this finding however did not examine the other evidence on record including the oral evidence. In Shivanandan v. Board of Revenue, 1980 RD 73, it has been held that adverse possession can be proved by documentary evidence or by oral evidence. In Ram Naresh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1978 RD 118, it has been held that oral evidence of possession cannot be ignored. In the circumstances the Deputy Director of Consolidation after recording the evidence that khasra entries were not reliable ought to have considered the oral evidence and any other evidence relied upon by the parties including irrigation slips, which he may not have considered.;