JUDGMENT Agarwala, J. - This is an application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. The Petitioner Fatta was a tenant of opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. He was ejected for non-payment of arrears of rent and an instalment of rent for the next year u/s 163 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. Later on, he brought a suit u/s 183 of that Act for regaining possession on the ground that his ejectment was illega1. This suit was decreed by the trial court on 10-7-1947 and the Petitioner took possession in execution of the decree, and his name was entered in the village records as a tenant. Against this decree an appeal was filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5. The appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 17-4-1948, that is before the commencement of the Fasli year 1356. The Petitioner went up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue and also applied for an order that he may not be dispossessed during the pendency of the appeal. The Board granted the stay order. By virtue of this stay order the Petitioner continued in possession of the holding in the year 1356F. and his name was also recorded as a tenant in possession in that year. Ultimately the second appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue in February 1952, that is before the vesting order under the Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1951, was passed. The opposite parties applied for restitution of possession u/s 144. Code of Civil Procedure, because the Petitioner's appeal had been dismissed. Restitution was allowed and possession over the holding was restored to the opposite parties on 17-5-1952, that is before the vesting order was made under the Z.A. and L.R. Act. 3. Thereafter the Petitioner brought a suit u/s 232 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act for possession against the opposite parties on the ground that he had acquired adhivasi rights u/s 20 of that Act by reason of his name being recorded as an occupant in the year 1356F. This suit was resisted by the opposite parties and was decreed by the first court, but was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal as well. 4. This suit was resisted by the opposite parties and was decreed by the first court, but was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal as well. 4. The Petitioner has now come up to this Court and has urged that the view taken by the Board is manifestly erroneous. According to him, in order to apply the provisions of Section 20 all that has to be seen is whether the Petitioner's name was in fact recorded as an occupant in the year 1356F. and that, if the answer to this question be in the affirmative, nothing else has to be seen and the Petitioner must be declared to have acquired adhivasi rights. 5. Section 20 was considered by us in the case of Nanak Chand v. Board of Revenue 1955 A.W.R. (H.C.) 371 and it was held by us that Clauses (b)(i) and (b) (ii) of Section 20 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act did not require the proof of actual possession in the year 1356 F. What they required was merely the entry of a person's name as an occupant in the year 1356F. That was a simple case in which a party claimed adhivasi rights on the basis of an entry in the revenue records of the year 1356F. and his claim was resisted on the ground that he was not in possession for a part of that year. It was held by us that the fact of being out of possession during a portion or the whole of the year was immaterial and that the entry in the record of 1356F was all that was to be considered. 6. In the present case, upon the facts as we have narrated above, it is quite obvious that, but for the order of the Board of Revenue staying the proceedings for the restoration of possession, the Petitioner would not have remained in possession of the holding in 1356F. and would not have his name recorded as being in possession of the holding in that year. The opposite parties had already, before the commencement of 1356F., obtained the right to enter into possession of the holding under the Additional Commissioner order dated 17-4-1948. The Petitioner, therefore, was enabled to remain in possession and to have his name recorded as an occupant of the holding in the year 1356F. The opposite parties had already, before the commencement of 1356F., obtained the right to enter into possession of the holding under the Additional Commissioner order dated 17-4-1948. The Petitioner, therefore, was enabled to remain in possession and to have his name recorded as an occupant of the holding in the year 1356F. by virtue of the stay order granted by the Board of Revenue. The question is whether, in these circumstances, the Petitioner can claim the benefits of Section 20(b) of the Act. In our opinion, he cannot do so; for, an act of the Court cannot be allowed to prejudice the rights of a party to the litigation actus curiae neminem gravabit. This maxim "is founded upon justice and good sense; and effords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law." See observations of Cresswell, J. in 12 C.B. 415. 7. The entry in the record of rights as an occupant envisaged in Section 20 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act is an entry made in the ordinary course of his business by the patwari and not an entry which has been made by reason of an order of a court, which is subsequently reversed. With the annulment of the order in pursuance of which the entry was made, the entry itself must be deemed to have ceased to exist. This is, therefore, a case to which, in our opinion, Section 20(b) of the Z.A. and L.R. Act was not intended to apply. We think the view taken by the Board of Revenue was correct. 8. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed with costs.