JUDGMENT : K.P. SINGH, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Dy. D.C. Basti dated 24-1-1974 in Revision No. 653 u/s 48 of U.P.C.H. Act-Raghupati and Ors. v. Jaglal. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that the Petitioner had acquired adhivasi and sirdari rights in the disputed land as he was in possession in lieu of Halwahi. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, when a person is in cultivatory possession in the year 1359 F. he would acquire adhivasi right therein. 3. Learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties contended before me in reply that a person in possession in lieu of Halwahi is in the capacity of a licencee and it is well known that a licencee cannot acquire adhivasi right on the basis of his cultivatory possession in the year 1359 F. 4. In Bhaggal Chamar v. Adya Prasad 1963 RD 194, a learned single Judge of this Court has observed as below: A person who performs the function of a ploughman and is given land instead of a salary cannot at all be called a tenant because there is neither any express nor implied contract for payment of rent. The contract implies that the Halwaha shall not be getting his salary as long as he works as a Halwaha, but will only reap the benefit of the crops raised in the land. He is not to pay any portion of the crop to the employer. If the implied contract is that the Halwaha will not get his salary during the time he works as a Halwaha and will pay nothing to the landlord such a contract cannot even by implication be deemed to include the payment of rent either in cash or kind. At the best he may be called a conditional rent free grantee on the condition that he will retain the possession of the land as long as he works as a Halwaha and shall not get his salary. From the above it is clear that the possession of a Halwaha over the land given to him in lieu of Halwahi is in the nature of permissive possession, hence in my opinion such a person would not acquire adhivasi right by virtue of his cultivatory possession in the year 1359 F. 5. From the above it is clear that the possession of a Halwaha over the land given to him in lieu of Halwahi is in the nature of permissive possession, hence in my opinion such a person would not acquire adhivasi right by virtue of his cultivatory possession in the year 1359 F. 5. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the person in possession over a plot in lieu of Halwahi is in cultivatory possession in his own right it cannot be said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not conferring adhivasi right upon the Petitioner. If both the views are possible and the subordinate authority has taken one view it is difficult to say that the impugned judgment suffers from patent mistake of law. 6. In Basudeo v. Board of Revenue 1974 RD 188 a Full Bench of this Court has held that an entry of Halwahi cannot be deemed to be an entry of recorded occupant. In interpreting the term 'recorded occupant' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, this Court has consistently held that a person recorded as mortgagee or Sajhi cannot be termed as 'recorded occupant'. In my opinion the possession of a person in lieu of Halwahi is in the nature of permissive possession or his possession can be termed as that of a licencee, hence he would not acquire adhivasi right by virtue of being in 'cultivatory possession' in the year 1359 F. 7. In the present case I do not think that the revisional court has taken patently erroneous view regarding the claims of the parties, hence the writ petition lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.