JUDGMENT M.C. Sharma, Chairman - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated September 26, 1974 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in a case under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which came up for hearing before Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, as he then was. 2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. One Bahadur moved a petition on April 17, 1974 before the learned Sub - Divisional Officer, Varanasi (South), to the effect that he was in possession of plot No. 13/11 in Mauza Palang Saheed, Pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi for the last 12 years. The Lekhpal did not record his possession. It was accordingly prayed that his possession should be recorded over the land in question after making necessary enquiries. The lekhpal of the village gave a report to the effect that it was a fact that Bahadur was in possession of the land in question for a long time. The Supervisor Kanungo endorsed this report of the Lekhpal and recommended that the name of Bahadur should be recorded as in possession in category 9 in Khatauni Part II relating to the village. The learned Assistant Collector/Sub - Divisional Officer, Varanasi, through his orders dated May 4, 1974 rejected the request of Bahadur on the ground that the Board of Revenue had prohibited the making of entries of possession of category 9 with effect from 1378 Fasli. The learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, held that the orders passed by the learned Sub - Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, Varanasi, were correct, as he had no jurisdiction to order entry in favour of Bahadur in category 9 in Part II of the Khatauni after the Board's orders. The learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, held that the orders passed by the learned Sub - Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector, Varanasi, were correct, as he had no jurisdiction to order entry in favour of Bahadur in category 9 in Part II of the Khatauni after the Board's orders. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, went on to say in his judgment that the learned Sub - Divisional Officer should have known that if a person is found to be in possession, his possession should have been recorded by the Supervisor Kanungo as an occupier of category 9 in Part II of the Khatauni in accordance with the procedure laid down in paras A-80, A-81 and A-81 A of the Land Records Manual and since the Lekhpal and the Supervisor Kanungo failed to fulfil their obligations in accordance with these paragraphs of the Land Records Manual, the learned Sub - Divisional Officer should have called for their explanations for this lapse. With these observations the learned Additional Commissioner rejected the Revision Petition. It is this order of rejection dated September 26, 1974 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, which gave rise to the present Revision Petition which came up for hearing before Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member. 3. in the course of hearing before Sri Ashwini Kumar, it was argued that the Board of Revenue had no authority to issue standing orders forbidding the entry of unauthorised possession and that the orders so issued violate the provisions of Paras A- 80, A-81, A-81 A and 423 of the Land Records Manual. A question regarding the maintainability of the application for making an entry of possession under category 9 in the relevant Khatauni Part II was also raised. 4. Since, according to Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member, the matter involves interpretation of law, he referred the matter to the then Chairman, Board of Revenue, to get certain issues decided by a Bench of three Members of the Board. The present Bench was accordingly constituted to decide certain points which were formulated by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member as follows :- (1) Whether an application for making an entry of possession under category 9 in the Khatauni, Part II is a judicial proceeding and is maintainable under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The present Bench was accordingly constituted to decide certain points which were formulated by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Member as follows :- (1) Whether an application for making an entry of possession under category 9 in the Khatauni, Part II is a judicial proceeding and is maintainable under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. (2) Whether the Board's orders contained in B.O. No. 18817-869-4-136Ba/76 dated October 17, 1970 were passed by the Board in exercise of powers under Section 214 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act ; or is, otherwise, within the competence of the Board ; and- (3) What is the effect of the above mentioned orders of the Board forbidding entry of unauthorised possession over the plots of tenure-holders from being made in the Land Records ? Does it amount to amendment or suspension of Paragraphs A-80, A-81, A-81A and 423 of the Land Records Manual ? 5. The case was argued before this Bench and Sri K.N. Misra, Advocate, was heard on behalf of the Revisionist, Bahadur. On behalf of the Respondents Sarvasri R.A. Upadhyaya and B.K. Singh, Advocates, Lucknow, were heard. 6. The first point referred for decision to the Bench is whether an application for making an entry of possession under category 9 in the Khatauni Part II is a judicial proceeding and is maintainable under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Attention of the Court was invited in this connection to paragraph 911 of the Manual of Orders of the Government of Uttar Pradesh in the Revenue Department, Vol. I, wherein it has been laid down that proceedings and orders as well as appeals, revisions and references in certain type of cases under the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901) shall be deemed judicial for the purposes of the said Act. At item (d) of this paragraph are mentioned "other disputed cases relating to entries in the records of rights and annual registers under Sections 39, 40, 42, 43 & 54" and it has been stipulated that they shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings. In view of this provision in para 911 of the Manual of Government Orders in the Revenue Department, we have no hesitation in holding that an application for making an entry of possession in category 9 in Khatauni Part II gaves rise to a judicial proceeding. In view of this provision in para 911 of the Manual of Government Orders in the Revenue Department, we have no hesitation in holding that an application for making an entry of possession in category 9 in Khatauni Part II gaves rise to a judicial proceeding. The error in the entry in recording possession of a person or omission to record it contemplates a lis between rival contenders, and the lis is to be decided and error is to be corrected after hearing contending parties, taking evidence and recording findings thereon. It postulates judicial determination and is subject to scrutiny by the Revising Authority in exercise of revisional power. Such proceedings are thus clearly judicial proceedings, and this part of the first question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. 7. As for the second part of the question, as to whether such an application is maintainable under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the law on the subject is now quite well-settled, and has been laid down as far back as in 1937-38 by the Board of Revenue when a Note on Section 33 and the following Section of the Land Revenue Act were issued by the Board in their Circular letter No. 56/Judl. Ex-66-B, dated 10-1937/December 10, 1938. These instructions of the Board have been reproduced in full in Appendix X to the U.P. Revenue Court Manual on pages 126 to 133. In this Note the Board have restricted the maintainability of applications for correction of the Khatauni under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act only to cases where the errors sought to be corrected through such applications are obvious ones, particularly of a clerical nature. The Board have ruled that if the applicant fails to satisfy the Assistant Collector that the error is a clerical error, his application should be thrown out at once. Similar action has to be taken if the applicant cannot show that a change has taken place since the entry was made ; in such a case the applicant should be instructed to file a regular suit. Similar action has to be taken if the applicant cannot show that a change has taken place since the entry was made ; in such a case the applicant should be instructed to file a regular suit. The law laid down as far back as in 1937-38 still holds good, and applications for correction of the annual registers are maintainable only to correct obvious clerical errors or omissions or which seek to reflect changes that have taken place since the entry sought to be corrected was made in the Khatauni. Where the errors or omissions are not of this type, an application for correction under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would not be maintainable. This part of the first question referred to us for decision is answered accordingly. 8. The second question referred to us for an answer is : whether the Board's order contained in B.O. No. 18817-869-4-136Ba/76 dated October 10, 1970 was passed by the Board in exercise of powers under Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, or is otherwise, within the competence of the Board. 9. Before answering this question, certain legal and historical facts are required to be stated. The Board's order dated October 17, 1970 came to be issued as a result of the directive to the Board contained in the orders of Government contained in Revenue Department G.O. No. 41/2 (4) cha-68-756-Rajasva (cha), dated July 3, 1970 addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, U.P. This G.O. was issued under the signatures of the then Dy. Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department, Sri Keshav Dayal Agarwal. The G.O. stated that, after full consideration Government had taken a decision to the effect that, as an experimental measure, recording of unauthorised possession over holdings of individual Khatedars in the remarks column of the Khasra should be stayed for a period of two years from the date of issue of the G.O. in question. It was in pursuance of these orders of Government, as modified by their orders contained in G.O. No. 41/2/(4)-69, dated Sept. 25, 1970, that the Board on the administrative ground for the first time issued orders contained in Board's Order No. 18817- 69/4-136B/70 dated October 17, 1970 addressed to all District Officers of U.P., with copies to all Divisional Commissioners, and with a copy to the Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department. 25, 1970, that the Board on the administrative ground for the first time issued orders contained in Board's Order No. 18817- 69/4-136B/70 dated October 17, 1970 addressed to all District Officers of U.P., with copies to all Divisional Commissioners, and with a copy to the Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department. Subsequently, Government issued another G.O. No. 41 (2)/(4)-Cha/68-756-Rajasva - Anubhag-9, dated October 3, 1972 under the signatures of Shri Satya Prakash, Deputy Secretary to Government, stating that Government had decided that the prohibition regarding making such entries should be continued for another two years and the Board were directed to issue necessary instructions to all the District Officers in the State immediately and also to endorse a copy of the orders issued by the Board to Government for information. On December 13, 1974 another G.O. was issued by Government in the Revenue Department under the signatures of Sri Satya Prakash, Deputy Secretary bearing No. 41/1/(2)-Cha/74-129 wherein it was stated that Government had decided that the entry of unauthorised possession in the remarks column of the Khasra should not be recorded during that year also ; and the Board were directed through this G.O. to inform all the District Officers of the State accordingly, with a copy of the B.O. so issued to Government for their information. On July 30, 1975 another G.O. was issued, bearing the same number, under the signatures of Sri Suresh Chandra Mishra, the then Deputy Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department, wherein it was stated that the recording of entries of unauthorised possession in the remarks column of the Khasra should remain stayed for another year, i.e., during the year 1383 Fasli also. Government desired in this G.O. that the Board should inform all the District Officers of the State accordingly with a copy of the orders so issued to Government for their information. This temporary prohibition was extended up to the Fasli year 1384 through G.O. No. 4432/1-9-76-41/1 (2)/74-129 dated September 10, 1976 issued under the signatures of the then Dy. Secretary in the Revenue Department, Sri P.N. Khanna, and the Board were directed to inform all the District Officers accordingly. Finally, through G.O. No. 6032/1/9-77-4/1 (2)-74-129 dated October 10, 1977, issued under the signatures of Sri Athar Husain, the then Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department to the Secy. Secretary in the Revenue Department, Sri P.N. Khanna, and the Board were directed to inform all the District Officers accordingly. Finally, through G.O. No. 6032/1/9-77-4/1 (2)-74-129 dated October 10, 1977, issued under the signatures of Sri Athar Husain, the then Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department to the Secy. to the Board of Revenue, the Board were informed that, after consideration of various aspects of the matter, the Governor was pleased to order that all the relevant rules relating to entry of possession over Khatedars' land in the Khasra and Khatauni should now be completely done away with. In para 2 of this G.O. the Board of Revenue were requested to send to Government a draft of consequential amendments of the relevant paras of the Land Records Manual for Governments approval. In pursuance of the directions contained in this G.O., the Secretary of the Board of Revenue issued orders bearing No. 21151-204/4-104/72 dated November 17, 1977 informing all the District Officers of these orders of Government completely stopping making such entries in the re marks column of the Khasra and in the Khatauni. A draft of the consequential amendments to paras A-80 and 423 (iv), (v) & (viii) of the Land Records Manual, as desired in para 2 of the G.O. dated October 10, 1977, were sent to Government in the Revenue Department under the signatures of the Secretary of the Board of Revenue through his letter No. 4135/4-104/72 dated March 12, 1979. 10. The above narration gives the historical position up to date in respect of this matter. This makes it clear that these orders were not issued at any stage by the Board of Revenue of their own volition. They were issued in compliance of the specific directions of Government, and the Board merely acted as the channel of communication of the orders as between the State Government in the Revenue Department on the one hand and the District Officers of the State on the other. 11. They were issued in compliance of the specific directions of Government, and the Board merely acted as the channel of communication of the orders as between the State Government in the Revenue Department on the one hand and the District Officers of the State on the other. 11. Question 2 referred to us for decision is, therefore, answered as follows:- The Board's orders contained in G.O. No. 18817-69/4-136B/70 dated October 17, 1970 were not passed by the Board in exercise of powers under section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, but were issued to communicate to the District Officers of the State the orders issued by Government in the Revenue Department in G.O. No. 41/2 (4)-Cha/ 68-756-Rajasva (Cha), dated July 3, 1970 read with G.O. No. 41/(2)/(4)-Cha/69-Rajasva (Cha), dated September 25, 1970. 12. The second part of this question is whether the Board's orders contained in this B.O. dated October 17, 1970 were within the competence of the Board. The question really does not arise. The Board did not issue any orders on their own. The B.O. was issued in accordance with Government's express directions to the Board & merely communicated a Government decision to the Collectors of the districts in the State and, therefore, the question of the legal competence of the Board to issue these orders does not arise. This part of question 2 is answered accordingly. 13. The third and the last question referred to us for answer is: what is the effect of the above mentioned orders of the Board forbidding entry of unauthorised possession over the plots of tenure-holders from being made in the Land Records ? Does it amount to amendment or suspension of paragraphs A-80, A-81, A-81 A and 423 of the Land Records Manual ? 14. This question presupposes that the orders were issued by the Board on their own. As has been stated above, these orders were not issued by the Board on their own. The Board, in issuing the various letters in this connection, only acted as a channel of communication to the District Officers of the State Governments orders issued in the various G. Os. cited above. The question, therefore, which really needs to be answered in respect of this matter is whether Government were competent to issue such orders; and, if so, what is the legal effect of those orders ? cited above. The question, therefore, which really needs to be answered in respect of this matter is whether Government were competent to issue such orders; and, if so, what is the legal effect of those orders ? From the arguments made at the Bar in this connection the following facts emerged. The State Government had the powers under Section 234 (b) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (Act No. III of 1901) before the enactment of the U.P. Act 30 of 1975, through which the earlier Section 234 was modified, to prescribe the forms, contents, methods of preparation, attestation and maintenance of the record of rights and other records and for regulating the procedure to be followed by any officer (or other person) who under any provision of this Act is required or empowered to take action in any case or proceeding under this Act. But they could do so only after following the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it stood at that time. This subsection (2) of Section 234 as it stood then used to read as follows :- "(2) All rules made by the State Government under this Section shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature while it is in session, for a total period of not less than 14 days extending in its one session or more than one successive sessions and shall unless some later date is appointed take effect" from the date of their publication in the Gazette subject to such modifications or amendment as the two Houses of Legislature may agree to make, so, however, that such modification or amendment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder. Since the orders prohibiting entry of unauthorised possession in the Khasra were issued by Government for the first time on the 3rd of July, 1970, it was essential that before such orders could legally take effect, Government, who then had the powers to issue such orders, should have amended the relevant paras of the Land Records Manual and before such amendments could take effect, Government had to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (as it stood then) as reproduced above. The learned D.G.O. (Rev.) was accordingly directed to ascertain in writing form a competent officer of Government in the Revenue Department if the procedure laid down in sub-para (2) of Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it stood at the relevant time was or was not adopted by the State Government and whether the relevant paras of the U.P. Land Records Manual were amended by Government. The learned D.G.C. (Rev.) informed us on April 27, 1979 through his letter on the record of that date that he had contacted Sri Fakir Chand, Deputy Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department who, D.G.C. was informed, was dealing with this matter. The learned D.G.C. (Revenue) followed this up by a written request on March 26, 1979 to the said Deputy Secretary to state the position in respect of this matter. The Deputy Secretary verbally told the learned DGC that he would be writing to the Board of Revenue in the matter direct. No such letter clarifying the position, has, however, reached the Board of Revenue to this date. An adverse inference can, therefore, be drawn to the effect that the relevant rules were not amended and the procedure prescribed in Section 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it stood at the relevant time was not adopted by the State Government. We are strengthened in our belief that this was indeed the position by the statement contained in para 2 of the last G.O. issued by Government on the subject finally prohibiting the making of such entries under the signatures of Sri Athar Husain, the then Secretary, to Government in the Revenue Department, dated October 10, 1977. In para 2 of this G.O., Government asked the Board to send to them the draft of amendments of the relevant paras of the Land Records Manual. This clearly implies that no such amendments had been made by the Government when the G.O. dated July 3, 1970 was issued. Since the Rules were not amended, there arose no question of following the procedure laid down in Section 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it then stood. This clearly implies that no such amendments had been made by the Government when the G.O. dated July 3, 1970 was issued. Since the Rules were not amended, there arose no question of following the procedure laid down in Section 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it then stood. Further confirmation of this position is derived from letter No 4135/4-104/72 dated March 12, 1979 from the Secretary, Board of Revenue, to the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department sending to the said Deputy Secretary a draft of the proposed amendments to the Land Records Manual. 15. Orders contained in the G.O. without first amending the relevant paras of the Land Records Manual and without following the procedure of laying of such amendments before the two Houses of the Legislature as prescribed in para 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it then stood are thus legally incompetent orders; and, therefore, not legally enforceable by anybody. The Rules contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual are statutory rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in them under Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, as it then stood, and nothing could be done in contravention of those rules, even as a temporary measure, by the issue of mere administrative orders in the from of a G.O. 16. It may also be stated that the powers of the State Government to make rules have now been completely taken away by the amendment of Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975; and the position after this amendment is that it is the Board of Revenue, who now have the power to make rules under Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act with the previous sanction of the State Government. The implication of this amendment is that the orders issued by Government in the Revenue Department in G.O. No. 6032/1-9-77-4/1 (2)-74-129 dated October 10, 1977 completely doing away with the entry of possession in the Khasra and Khatauni over lands held by Khatedars could not have been legally issued by Government who, at the relevant time, had been divested of the powers, which they earlier had, as a result of the amendment made in Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act through U.P. Act No. 30 of 1975. It is the Board who now had to take the initiative in the matter to amend the relevant rules of the U.P. Land Records Manual to give effect to this decision of Government after obtaining prior approval of Government to the proposed amendments. 17. In a nutshell, the position that emerges from the above discussion is that at the time when Government had issued orders in this connection for the first time on July 3, 1970, while they had the powers to issue such orders, they could do so only after amending the relevant rules of the U.P. Land Records Manual and after adopting the procedure laid down in Section 234 (2) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as it then stood; and when they issued the final orders in their G.O. dated July 10, 1977, Government had no such powers, and it was for the Board to take the initiative in the matter, which they did not take. They actually moved in the matter by sending the draft amendments only as a result of the directive given to them by Government in para 2 of the G.O. of October 10, 1977 cited above. The initiative thus was taken by the Government and not by the Board, as was the legal requirement. Thus all the orders issued by Government in this regard are legally incompetent orders. 18. Another thing came to our notice while looking into the relevant papers: although in the Government's orders beginning with their G.O. No. 41 (2)/(4)-Cha/68-756-Rajaswa (cha), dated July 3, 1979, up to G.O. No. 4432/ 1-9-76-41/1 (2)/74-129 dated Sept. 10, 1976, only making of entries in the remarks column of the Khasra were stayed and although there was no mention of any prohibition of entries being made of category 9 in Khatauni Part II, somehow the officers in the field, without any such direction either by the Government or by the Board, stopped making entries of unauthorised occupants of category 9 in Khatauni Part II also on their own. This was clearly unwarranted, either by Government or by the Board up to the issue of the G.O. cited above dated September 10, 1976. The complete doing away with the entries of category 9 in Part II of the Khatauni for the first time has been mentioned in G.O. No. 6032/1-9-77-4/1 (2)-74-129, dated October 10, 1977. There was, therefore, no. This was clearly unwarranted, either by Government or by the Board up to the issue of the G.O. cited above dated September 10, 1976. The complete doing away with the entries of category 9 in Part II of the Khatauni for the first time has been mentioned in G.O. No. 6032/1-9-77-4/1 (2)-74-129, dated October 10, 1977. There was, therefore, no. prohibition regarding making entries of category 9 in Part II of Khatauni till the issue of this last G.O. of October 10, 1977, and the Revenue Officers in the field clearly stretched the terms of Government's orders issued from July 3, 1970 onwards in a completely unauthorised and illegal manner. What was prohibited was the making of entries of unauthorised possession over lands of Khatedars in the remarks column of the Khasra only. 19. All the orders issued by Government in the various G. Os. cited J in para 9 above and the directions issued in pursuance thereof by the Board of Revenue to the District Officers of the State beginning from G.O. No. 41/2 (4)-cha-68-756-Rajasva (cha), dated July 3, 1970 and ending with G.O. No. 6032/1-9-77-4/1 (2)/74-129 dated October 10, 1977 are, therefore, legally untenable orders. The orders being clearly illegal, no court is bound to act in accordance with those orders communicated to them through the agency of the Board of Revenue. Question 3, as modified by us, is, therefore, answered as follows :- "The effect of the above mentioned orders of Government forbidding entry of unauthorised possession over the plots of tenure-holders from being made in the remarks column of the Khasra is 'nil', the orders being legally incompetent ; and, therefore, not binding on any Revenue Court. The orders do not amount to amendment or suspension of paragraphs A-80, A-81, A-81 A and 423 of the Land Records Manual, as no amendments to these paragraphs have been made up to date, and there is no provision in law for the suspension of the operation of statutory rules, which, on the contrary, continue to have force and legal validity till they are actually amended in the prescribed manner by the authority competent to do the same. This last question referred to the Bench is answered accordingly."