JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a plaintiff's revision against order dated 18-5-1979 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division Agra dismissing revision no. 60 of 1978-79 that it was not maintainable as no first appeal was filed against judgment and decree dated 19-9-1978 passed by S.D.O. Mant, district Mathura dismissing suit of the plaintiff under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 for declaration to be sirdar in possession of plot no. 145 area 1.90 acre as he had been in possession since prior to 30th June 1975 and became sirdar under Section 122-B (4-F) of Act I of 1951. 2. The suit was contested by the State denying the claim and possession of the plaintiff alleging that he had not been in possession on or before 30-6-1975 and is not in possession even now. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised that no declaratory suit can be filed under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 which provision can be used only as a shield and not as weapon of assault. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sirdari rights are mentioned in Section 131 and the case of the applicant falls under acquisition of sirdari rights under any provision of the Act including Section 12-B(4-F). 5. Section 131 of Act I of 1951 ruus as follows : after amendment of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977. 131. "Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. Every person belonging to any of the following clauses shall be called a bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon bhumidhars by or under this Act, namely. (a) every person admitted as a sirdar of any land under Section 195 before the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, or as a bhumidhar with non transferable rights under the said section on or after the said date ; (b) every person who is any other manner acquires on or after the said date, the rights of such a bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of this act, (c) every person, who is or has been allotted any land under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna.........Act, 1952." 6. Section 122B(4-F) of Act I of 1251 runs as follows : - 122-B(4-F) Notwithstanding any thing in the forgoing sub-sections, where any agricultural labourer belonging to a scheduled Caste or scheduled Tribe is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132) having occupied it from before June 30, 1975 and the land so occupied together with land, if any, held by him from before the said date as bhumidhar, sirdar or asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3-125 acres), then no action under this section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such labourer, and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted as sirdars to that land under Section 195." 7. It appears that under Section 122B(I-F) a person belonging to scheduled caste being landless agricultural labourer being in possession over Gaon Sabha's land not exceeding the prescribed limit from before June 30, 1975 the L.M.C. or the Collector is prohibited to take action under Section 122-B of Act of 1951 against such person and it shall be deemed that he has been admitted a sirdar to the land under Section 195 of the Act. 8. The provision of Section 131 of sub Section (b) is attracted as the right of sirdari is acquired under the provisions of Section 122-B(4-F)of the Act, therefore, my conclusion is that a person fulfilling the requirements of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act can file a suit for declaration of his rights like a person acquiring sirdari rights under Section 194 of Act I of 1951. 9. It has been argued that the P.Ws were not cross-examined who stated that the applicant was in possession since prior to 30th June 1975 and the report of the Supervisor Kanungo dated 6-10-1978 that the possession of the applicant was since prior to 30th June 1975 have been ignored by both the courts below. 10. It has been argued that the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the applicant had not been in possession prior to 1382 fasli should not be interfered with in revision. 11. 10. It has been argued that the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the applicant had not been in possession prior to 1382 fasli should not be interfered with in revision. 11. The learned Additional Commissioner misread the report of the Supervisor Kanungo dated 6-10-1977 that is related to some other person whereas it is a report regarding the possession of the applicant for the disputed land in which it has been reported that the applicant's are in possession over the disputed land since 1974 continuously who were in possession prior to 1974 fasli but in a case under Section 115-C they were ejected in 1973 then some other persons came in possession who were also ejected under rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, then the applicants atain took wrongful possession and are in continuous possession since 1974. It was so stated by Dori Lal P.W. 1 Bankey Lal Lekhpal P.W. 2 Supervisor Kanungo Sri Har Prasad Kulshrestha P.W. 3 stated that he does not remember what he had reported about the possession of the applicant on the disputed land although he admitted that he had made an inquiry and submitted report P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not been cross examined and their statements unchallenged D.W. 1 the present lekhpal stated that possession of the applicants is recorded since 1385 fasli and he does not know whether they were in possession prior to it. 12. Thus there is preponderance of unrebutted evidence that the applicant's possession over the disputed land is since prior to 1382 fasli i.e. since 1380-81 fasli and the mere fact that they have been recorded by previous lekhpal only since 1385 fasli should not be taken to be gospel truth. 13. It has been held in A.I.R. 1977 SC page 1712 : "that there is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the records of rights will be presumed to be correct when it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct." 14. 13. It has been held in A.I.R. 1977 SC page 1712 : "that there is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the records of rights will be presumed to be correct when it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct." 14. The applicants are entitled to the benefit of Section 122B(4-F) of the Act because they are landless agricultural labourer belonging to scheduled caste as admitted by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha in the written statement of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, both the courts below is not considering the oral evidence arrived to a wrong finding by misreading the report of the Supervisor Kanungo, wrongly gave concurrent finding that the applicant (plaintiffs) failed to prave their possession since prior to 1382 Fasli and wrongly dismissed their suits for declaration to be sirdar in possession. The argument that concurrent findings cannot be interfered with in revision has got no force because if it is found that the findings of courts below are grossly erroneous and against fact, the Board has got ample power in revision to interfere with such findings of the courts below as has been held in Jamuna Prasad v. Rameshwar Din and others. 15. The lower appellate court took illegal view that the revision application was not maintainable as no first appeal was filed because Section 333 of Act I of 1951 provides as follows - 333. "Power of Board to call for oases : - The Board may call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or where an lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears. (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law ; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested : or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. the Board may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit. It is thus clear the revision application is maintainable when no appeal has been filed. 16. In view of the above, this revision application is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. the Board may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit. It is thus clear the revision application is maintainable when no appeal has been filed. 16. In view of the above, this revision application is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are hereby set aside. The plaintiffs' suit stands decreed and they are declared to be sirdars in possession of the disputed land who shall be so recorded and the papers shall be corrected accordingly. Costs on parties.