- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner have sought writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-10-1992, passed by respon dent No. 2 setting aside the order of Con solidation Officer, dated 27-3-1992, and the order dated 24-9-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that during consolidation proceedings, in the basic year Khatauni the name of Ranga Singh, respondent No. 3 and Mangal Singh, father of respondent No. 4 was recorded in Khata No. 13 and in Khata No, 14 the name of Mangal Singh was recorded. In these two Khatas the name of Jagtar Singh was recorded in class-L. Jag-tar Singh filed objection claiming bhumid-hari rights on the basis of adverse posses sion. THE Consolidation Officer allowed the objection on 27-3-1992 on the finding that Jagtar Singh was in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years. Respondent No. 3 filed appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. Respondent No, 2 allowed the appeal on 30-10-1992 and reversed the finding of the Consolidation Officer. Jagtar Singh filed revision against the said order before the Deputy Director of Consolidation con cerned. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision by order dated 24-9-1996. THE petitioners, as heirs of Jagtar Singh, have filed the present writ petition. The sole question is as to whether Jagtar Singh had acquired rights in the land in dispute by adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holders. Respondent No. 2 has recorded finding that Jagtar Singh failed to establish that he acquired rights by adverse possession. Jag tar Singh was brother-in-law of respon dent No. 3 and nephew of respondent No. 4. The entries in the Khasras were not reliable as it was not shown that P. A. 10 was issued and by whose orders the entries were made. The matter was re- examined by respondent No. 1. The view taken by respondent No. 2 has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings recorded by respondents 1 and 2. It is urged that it was not necessary to lead any evidence to prove that P. A. 10 was issued. There is a presump tion that the entries were correctly made. It is necessary to examine relevant provisions of the U. P. Land Records as applicable at the time of making the entries in question.
(3.) PARA A-60 of the U. P. Land Records Manual provides that the Khasra shall be prepared in Form P-3 given thereunder. PARA A-80 provides that the Lekhpal while on partal in the village shall keep with him a book of memorandum of facts of posses sion in cases of the Chapter mentioned in PARA A-72 (ii) and A- 72 (iii ). He shall make inquiries regarding nature of the land in dispute and he shall at the same time record the number of the plots. PARA A- 80 provides that after completing the Kharif or Rabi or Jaid Partal of a village each page of the memorandum in Form P. A. 24 shall be signed by the Lekhpal. PARA A- 81-A provides that the Lekhpal shall inform the Chairman, the Land Management Com mittee and all tenure-holders of the village including the persons concerned with the entries made in the memorandum delivered to the Supervisor Qanungo. PARA A-102-C provides that the entries shall be valid if they are made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual. It is clear from Para 102-C of the Land Records Manual that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they were not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. There is presump tion of correctness of the entries provided it is made in accordance with the relevant provisions of Land Records Manual and secondly, in case where a person is claim ing adverse possession against the recorded tenure-holder and he denies that he had not received any P. A. 10 or he had no knowledge of the entries made in the revenue records, the burden of proof is further upon the person claiming adverse possession to prove that the tenure-holder was duly given notice in prescribed Form P. A. 10. Para A-81 itself provides that the notice will be given by the Lekhpal and he will obtain the signature of the Chairman, Land Management Committee as well as from the recorded tenure- holder. It is also otherwise necessary to be provided by the persons claiming adverse possession. The law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of posses sion as against the true owner but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it further provided by him that the tenure-holder had knowledge of such adverse pos session.;