JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This second appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment dated 2-2-77 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, reversing the decree dared 31-8-76 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalitpur in a case under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Latkan filed a suit against Mohan Lal and others under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of plot no. 596/1 (area 2 28 acres) situate in village Panari, Pargana and District Lalitpur, alleging that he had been in adverse possession for the last fifteen years and had accordingly acquired sirdari rights and that defendants nos. 3 to 10 had no concern with the land. Defendants Mohan Lal and others contested the suit denying the claim of the plaintiff and alleging that they had received no P.A. 10 slip and had no knowledge of the adverse possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal the lower appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, giving rise to the present second appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondents despite due notice. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Para 102-C of the Land Records Manual had been deleted and, therefore, its non-issuance at the relevant time was immaterial, that the defendants themselves admitted long possession of the plaintiff. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner found that the extract of the khatauni of 1367 Fasli showed that the Supervisor Kanungo had not passed any orders with regard to the entry in the name of Latkan in Class 9. He also found that no P. A 10 slip had been filed and there was nothing to show that any P.A. 10 slip was issued and served on Mohan Lal and others. On the basis of this, he concluded that the entry in class 9 was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Records Manual and as such Latkan could not acquire sirdari rights on the basis of this entry of class 9. 6. In the instant case the provisions of Paras A-80 and A-81 of Land Records Manual were applicable. They read as under :- "A-80. 6. In the instant case the provisions of Paras A-80 and A-81 of Land Records Manual were applicable. They read as under :- "A-80. After each partal of a village the Patwari shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated list of the entries mentioned in paragraphs A-71 to A-73 above in the following form : FORM NO. P.A. 10 Khasra No. of plot Area Entry in column 4 of the Khasra Entry in the column 5 of the Khasra Entry in the remarks column of the Khasra Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 "A-81. (1) One 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 handover to the person or persons mentioned in column 3 or 4 or to their heirs if the person or persons mentioned 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 have been issued in all the necessary cases. If he finds that a slip 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 present at the time of verification by the Supervisor Kanungo. (3) The person affected, if he is aggrieved, may apply for correction of papers to the Panchayati Adalat or the Tehsildar or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be." 7. Para 102-C of the Land Records Manual was not at all applicable in respect of issue of slips regarding adverse possession. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that there was no evidence to show that P.A. 10 slip was issued or served on the defendants and hence he rightly found that the entry in class 9 in the name of plaintiff Latkan was nor made in accordance with law and hence no rights could accrue to him on the basis of such an entry. The trial court had discussed oral evidence and found that D.W.I., Mohan Lal and his witness Lakshman Prasad had denied the possession of the plaintiff over the land in suit and on the basis of entry in 1367 Fasli and thereafter the trial court held the plaintiff as sirdar of the land in suit. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant's witnesses admitted the long possession of the plaintiff. If the entries on the basis of which the plaintiff claims his sirdari rights are not made in accordance with law thus these entries are no entries in the eye of law. No error of law or material irregularity has been shown to have been committed by the learned lower appellate Court. 8. The second appeal is hereby dismissed.