JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 15, 1975 passed by Sri B.N. Singh, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in appeal No. 1158, district Sultanpur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 30, 1971 passed by the Extra Officer/Assistant Collector First Class, Sultanpur in Suit No. 111/6 under Sections 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Ram Raj and Mathura had filed a suit seeking declaration of their Sirdari rights in plot No. 561 in village Patti Pipari and the ejectment of the defendant-appellant Ramanad Singh filed a written statement contesting the suit. In para 10 of the written statement he contended that he was a Shikmi tenant of the land in dispute before abolition of Zamindari and after abolition of Zamindari has become Sirdar thereof. In para 12 he contended that he became Sirdar of the land in suit by prescription under Section 209/210, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In para 13 he contended that fifteen years back he had established a brick-kiln in this land and subsequently after two or three years he put another kiln in the land. These two brick-kilns have left two pits in the land and the remaining plot was cultivated. In para 15 be alleged that the plaintiffs never had any concern with the land in suit and had never been in possession thereof. The trial court however, held the plaintiffs to be Sirdars of the land in suit and decreed their suit for possession. The judgment of the trial court has been affirmed by the first appellate court. 4. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is recorded in possession from 1359 Fasli and that suit was filed on October 3, 1970 and as such the appellant acquired rights under Section 210, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned counsel has also contended that the courts below were wrong in discarding the Khasra entries. Now, the total area of the plot in suit is 1 bigha. The extract from the Khasra which has been filed shows that the defendant appellant was in occupation of 4 biswa area of the plot in 1369 Fasli. For 1370 Fasli two extracts from Khasra have been filed. Now, the total area of the plot in suit is 1 bigha. The extract from the Khasra which has been filed shows that the defendant appellant was in occupation of 4 biswa area of the plot in 1369 Fasli. For 1370 Fasli two extracts from Khasra have been filed. The extract filed the plaintiff-respondents shows that they are in cultivatory possession, while the extract filed by the defendant-appellant shows him to be in occupation of the land by sowing 5 biswa area. In 1371 Fasli he has been shown over 2 biswa area and the rest of the area has remained uncultivated. In 1372 Fasli, Ramanand is recorded as a Shikmi tenant who had cultivated only 3 biswa area. In 1373 Fasli the entire area has remained uncultivated and in 1374 Fasli 10 biswa area has been cultivated. In 1375 Fasli again Ramanand is recorded as sub-tenant but the entire area is shown as uncultivated. In 1376 Fasli 9 biswa area has been sown. In the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli, 1359 Fasli and 1362 Fasli, Dhannu the father's brother of the plaintiff-respondent from whom the plaintiff-respondents claimed their title, is recorded as the tenant in chief. In the Khasra of 1365 Fasli Dhannu is recorded in possession. In 1368 Fasli the plaintiff-respondents are recorded in possession. In all the sub-sequent Khasras the plaintiff respondents are recorded as tenants-in-chief in the main column. The above narration shows that the defendant-appellant has not been in continuous adverse possession since 1369 Fasli. The trial court has correctly observed that there could be no adverse possession when there is no trace of crop or any other such overt act to make it worth recognition in the eye of law. As seen above, in the Khasra of 1371 Fasli there is no crop at all. The trial court has also observed that in the Khasra there is no mention of P.A. 10 extract. As such the entries have not been made in accordance with the rules contained in the Land Records Manual. At the relevant time, Rules A-80, A-81 and A-84 of the Land Records Manual provided as follows: "A-80. After each partal of a village the Patwari shall prepare in triplicate consolidated list of the entries mentioned in paragraphs A-71 to A-73 shows in the following form: Form No. P-A 10 1 Khasra No. of plot. 2 Area. 3 Entry in col. After each partal of a village the Patwari shall prepare in triplicate consolidated list of the entries mentioned in paragraphs A-71 to A-73 shows in the following form: Form No. P-A 10 1 Khasra No. of plot. 2 Area. 3 Entry in col. 4 of the Khasra. 4 Entry in col. 5 of the Khasra. 5 Entry in the remarks column of the Khasra. 6 Remarks. "A-81 (1) On copy of the list shall be sent to the Supervisor Kanungo and another to the President of the Gaon Panchayat. The Patwari shall also prepare extracts from this list and hand over to the person or persons mentioned in column 3 of 4 or to their heirs, if the person or persons concerned have died, obtaining their signatures on the copy of the list retained by him. (2) At the time of inspection the Supervisor Kanungo shall verify the list submitted by the Patwari and see that slips has not been issued in any case, he shall get it issued in his presence. The Supervisor Kanungo shall also intimate before hand the dates of his inspection to the President of the Gaon Panchayat so that he or any member of the Gaon Panchayat may be the Supervisor Kanungo. (3) The person affected, if he is aggrieved, may apply for correction of papers to the Panchayati Adalat or the Tahsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be. "A-84 (a) Where a person is in possession of land lying vacant, or uncultivated whether under a valid lease or otherwise, the Patwari shall make the entry of possession indicating therein the name of the person in possession in the remarks column of the Khasra and shall also incorporate the entry in the list in form P.A. 10. (b) In case the possession of the land has been acquired under a valid title or lease, the details of the orders under which the possession has been recognised shall also be entered in the remarks column underneath the entry of possession." In view of the above rules, the trial court has been perfectly justified in holding that the entries of possession in the name of the defendant-appellant in the Khasra have not been made in accordance with the rules and cannot be relied upon. The trial court has also rightly held that as in 1373 Fasli the defendant was not in possession, he cannot be deemed to have perfected his title. Even in 1370 Fasli it has not been established that the defendant-appellant was in possession in view of two sets of conflicting Khasra entries. These findings of the trial court have been rightly upheld by the first appellate court and I find no sufficient reason to interfere. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the admitted case of both the parties is that there is brick-kiln in the land in suit and as such the judgment and decree of the courts below were invalid in law. It is certainly not the admitted case of both the parties that the land in suit is a brick-kiln. In the Khasra and Khatauni the land is recorded as agricultural land. The only thing admitted by Mathura, plaintiff-respondent No. 2 in his oral statement was that a brick-kiln was installed in one biswa area of the land more than ten years back. The essential criterion to judge whether land is agricultural or non-agricultural is whether the main use to which the land is put is agricultural or non-agricultural. Thus, it a farmer constructs a small farmhouse in his holding for better supervision of his agricultural operations and crops, the farm does not ceases to be agricultural land. As a matter of fact, in the system of farming adopted in western countries the common practice is to build a farmhouse in side the farm and this practice is also being adopted by enlightened progressive farmers in the country. If one biswa area out of the plot of one bigha was used for brick-kiln move than ten years back, the land does not thereby cease to be agricultural land. Moreover, both Goan Sabha and the State of U.P. were impleaded as defendants in the suit. If agricultural purposes, it is for the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha to claim the land for the Gaon Sabha. However, neither the State of U.P. nor the Gaon Sabha have contested the suit. It is not open to a private party to put forward this plea in order to deprive a tenure-holder of his rights. 6. If agricultural purposes, it is for the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha to claim the land for the Gaon Sabha. However, neither the State of U.P. nor the Gaon Sabha have contested the suit. It is not open to a private party to put forward this plea in order to deprive a tenure-holder of his rights. 6. The learned counsel has also contended that the appellant is recorded as sub-tenant and the burden lay heavily on the plaintiff-respondents which they failed to do and as such the appellant's case stands unrebutted and the courts below had no jurisdiction to hold otherwise. Now, the situation is that plaintiff-respondents and before them their predecessors-in-interest are recorded as tenants in the main column continuously, whereas the defendant-appellant has been recorded as sub-tenant only for the first time in 1372 Fasli. It is not shown that the sub-tenancy was created by sub-letting of the land. The trial court has held that the defendant-appellant was merely a trespasser and there was no sub-letting of land in his favour. The lower appellate court has rightly observed that the entry of the name of the defendant-appellant in the sub-tenancy column was defective because it was based on a defective entry of the Khasra. Both the courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, which, to my mind, is fully borne out from the record, that the defendant-appellant took unauthorised possession of land in 1369 Fasli but he has not been in continuous possession so as to perfect his title over the land. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents have invited my attention to Narain Das v. Raghubar Dayal, 1973 R.D. 256 and Chiranji v. Jangalia, 1973 R.D. 299. In the former, case a learned Member Sri B.K. Misra has observed as follows:- "No doubt it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that his suit was within limitation. The burden lay very heavily upon the defendants to establish that they had perfected their rights over the land in dispute by long and continuous possession. In the former, case a learned Member Sri B.K. Misra has observed as follows:- "No doubt it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove that his suit was within limitation. The burden lay very heavily upon the defendants to establish that they had perfected their rights over the land in dispute by long and continuous possession. Where in the extract of Khasra 1366 Fasli, while the name of the appellant is recorded, there is no reference of issue of P.A. 10 Therefore, according to the provisions of Para 102-C of the Land Records Manual, no reliance could be placed on this entry." In the latter case, another learned Member Sri M. Zaheer has held as follows:- "It is easy to secure manipulations of entries whether in current or consigned records but the proof that these entries had been made on the basis of actualities can only be secured from evidence showing that simultaneously with the making of these entries the subject matter was also communicated to the parties affected by the entries. If there is inadequate evidence with regard to the communication of the existence of trespass to the person against whom trespass was alleged, there would be reason to suspect the entries in the records. On the other hand, if the tenure-holder is informed of the existence of trespass of his holding and also the fact that this trespass has been noted in the records, he ought to be vigilant and is expected to take action for the removal of the trespass within the period of limitation, and if he does not do so, he has to suffer the consequences of his neglect. Amongst other things it was very important for the trial court to have ascertained whether or not the entries of possession made in the Khasra had been duly communicated to the tenure-holder concerned." I am entirely in agreement with the above observations which fully apply to the present case. Where a trespasser claims rights by virtue of adverse possession, the evidence as regards possession and the period since when it has been continued must be subjected to a strict scrutiny in accordance with the provisions of law and rules. Where a trespasser claims rights by virtue of adverse possession, the evidence as regards possession and the period since when it has been continued must be subjected to a strict scrutiny in accordance with the provisions of law and rules. Where after such strict scrutiny both the trial court and the first appellate court have recorded a finding against such a theory, there will be no justification to upset the concurrent finding in second appeal merely on basis of haphazard and half-hearted evidence. 8. The judgments of the courts below are fully established on the evidence on record and are sound in law. There is no force in this second appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.