JUDGMENT : M.N. Shukla, J. The writ petition arises out of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) and is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra, dated 19th July, 1978, allowing the revision filed by Respondent No. 2 Shree Chand and others. 2. In the basic year plot No. 602/2 was recorded in the name of Respondent No. 2 Shree Chand and others. Hence, the Petitioner filed an objection u/s 9-A of the Act claiming that he had been in continuous possession over the land in dispute for more than 20 years and as such he had perfected his sirdari rights u/s 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The Respondent contested the objection on the ground that the land in dispute had never been in possession of the Petitioner and the entries of his possession were incorrect. It was alleged that since the Petitioner had never been in possession of the said land the question of his acquiring rights as sirdar u/s 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act did not arise. The Consolidation Officer accepted the Petitioner's objection. The Respondent preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. Consequently, the aforesaid Respondent preferred a revision which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whose order has been impugned in this writ petition. 3. The sole question which arose for decision in the case was as to whether the Respondents had succeeded in proving their possession for the requisite period in order to perfect sirdari rights and whether their possession had been "otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of law." The parties adduced oral evidence. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner were disbelieved and the Dy. Director of Consolidation observed that the most material piece of evidence had not been brought on record by the Petitioner to prove his possession. I am inclined to endorse the reasoning of the revisional authority. It is significant that although the Petitioner claimed to have been in possession of the disputed land for nearly 20 years and yet he was unable to file a single irrigation slip which would have been of great probative value in demonstrating his possession. I am inclined to endorse the reasoning of the revisional authority. It is significant that although the Petitioner claimed to have been in possession of the disputed land for nearly 20 years and yet he was unable to file a single irrigation slip which would have been of great probative value in demonstrating his possession. It is remarkable that the Petitioner had admitted in his evidence that the disputed land was irrigated land as evidenced by the entries in the Khasra of the year 1366 Fasli and yet he was not able to adduce an iota of evidence to show that he had ever irrigated this land. Thus on an evaluation of oral and other material documentary evidence the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner was unable to prove his possession. 4. However, the point which has been vehemently urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the revisional authority committed an apparent error of law by discarding the entry of possession standing in the name of the Respondent Shree Chand in the Khasra of 1366 Fasli and the further entry of his name of sub-tenant in the 12 years Khasra for the period 1367-1378 Fasli. It was contended that the entry in the khasra of 1366 Fasli clearly proved the Petitioner's adverse possession to entitle him to sirdari rights. This entry of adverse possession in the Petitioner's favour made for the first time in the year 1366 Fasli was rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that it had not been made in accordance with law. The Petitioner had not adduced any evidence to prove that a notice in the form of PA 10 had been issued for the year 1366 Fasli and that the same had been served on the contesting Respondents. Paragraph A-80 of the Land Records Manual contains the provisions for the issue of PA 10 in a case of new or changed entry. It is true that compliance of this provision is not required in every year for the subsequent entries. Nevertheless, it must be shown that the first such new or altered entry was made after complying with the provisions of Para A-80 of the Land Records Manual. In the absence of such evidence no value attaches to such entries and the Dy. Nevertheless, it must be shown that the first such new or altered entry was made after complying with the provisions of Para A-80 of the Land Records Manual. In the absence of such evidence no value attaches to such entries and the Dy. Director of Consolidation was not in error in rejecting such entries on that ground. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries in the revenue records and the onus lay on the Respondents to prove that the entries showing the Petitioner's possession had not been made in accordance with law. This contention is untenable. Firstly, it is not possible for a party to prove a negative fact. Secondly, the question as to whether a notice in the form of PA 10 was issued and served on the Petitioner also is a fact which was within his exclusive knowledge. A perusal of Paragraphs A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual would show that PA 10 has to be issued to the chief-tenant, the sub-tenant as well as persons in actual possession as contemplated by columns 3, 4 and 5 respectively of Form PA 10. Paragraph A-81 provides that the Lekhpal shall fill in first five columns and hand over a copy of the list to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. He shall also prepare extracts from the list and issue to the person or persons recorded in columns 3, 4 and 5 thereof and obtain their signatures on the copy of the list retained by him. In the instant case the Petitioner could have easily produced the extracts of the entries in PA 10 served on him. No attempt was made to file the same and the presumption must be drawn that such extract was not served on the Petitioner. Further, Paragraph A-80 of the Land Records Manual provides that a copy of the entry should be communicated to the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or Gaon Panchayat and signature of receipt of the copy should also be obtained. There is no evidence on the record to prove compliance of these provisions. The Petitioner has not been able to explain as to why he failed to examine such evidence. There is no evidence on the record to prove compliance of these provisions. The Petitioner has not been able to explain as to why he failed to examine such evidence. The matter is also clinched by the admission of the Petitioner's own witness, namely, Ram Gopal in cross-examination that PA 10 with regard to the Petitioner's possession was not issued. 6. The Petitioner's contention that the burden lay on the Respondents to disprove the authenticity and destroy the probative value of the entry of possession cannot be accepted. In my opinion where possession is asserted by a party who relies mainly on the entry of adverse possession in his favour and such possession is denied by the recorded tenure-holder, the burden is on the former to establish that the entry with regard to his adverse possession was made in accordance with law. It is necessary for the recorded tenure-holder to plead that such entry had not been made in accordance with law. Pleadings merely require possession to be asserted and denied and not an express challenge of the documentary evidence such as entries in the revenue records on which the opposite party relies. Inasmuch as the Petitioner failed to discharge the burden which lay upon him of proving that the entry of his alleged adverse possession was made after complying with the provisions of Paragraph A-80 of the Land Records Manual, the presumption of law arose against him. After excluding this entry which was the sheet-anchor of the Petitioner, the residue of the oral and other documentary evidence was fully scrutinised by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on appraisal of such evidence he came to the conclusion that the Petitioner's possession had not been proved. Hence, he was right in holding that no sirdari rights accrued to the Petitioner. 7. Thus, I find no force in this writ petition and dismiss the same with costs.