Judgment S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plots in dispute are 41/1, 41/2, 41/3,42/1 and 45 situated in Village Dhondhaipur, Tappa Khuriyan, Pargana Nagar West Tehsil Harraiya District Basti. In the basic-year the name of Sheo Prasad (respondent no. 3) was recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner Shiva Shanker filed an objection under section 9 (A) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act seeking that the name of the respondent no. 3 be deleted and in his place the name of the petitioner be substituted, on the allegation that the land in dispute had come down to him through a sale deed before the date of vesting and. that he had planted trees thereon and consequently he was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It was further alleged by him that his possession over the plots in dispute in any case was adverse to the respondent no. 3 and as such he perfected his rights by adverse-possession and consequently he should be recorded as a sirdar in place of the respondent no. 3. The Consolidation Officer by his judgment dated 30th August, 1971 allowed the objection. The case of the petitioner that he had purchased the land in dispute through a sale-deed was not accepted but on the basis of the entries in the revenue-records for the years 1370F. onwards it was found by the Consolidation Officer that since the petitioner was recorded in Varg-9 in the years mentioned above, he has perfected his rights by adverse possession and as such he became sirdar of the plots in dispute. 2. IT may be mentioned here that in respect of certain other plots, objections were filed by persons other than parties to this petition. All these objections were decided by the order dated 30th August, 1971 by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently four appeals were filed against the said order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the present petition, however, we are only concerned with appeal no. 1245, which was filed by respondent no. 3 Sheo Prasad. All these objections were decided by the order dated 30th August, 1971 by the Consolidation Officer. Consequently four appeals were filed against the said order before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In the present petition, however, we are only concerned with appeal no. 1245, which was filed by respondent no. 3 Sheo Prasad. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by judgment dated 12-10-1972 allowed the appeal of Sheo Prasad and directed that his name shall continue to be recorded and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside, The relevant portion of the judgment of the Settlement Officer Consolidation is quoted below : " Sheo Shanker has been shown in adverse possession of these plots also from 1370F. to 1374F. and from 1375F. he has been shown as tenant of class 9. I find that these adverse possession entries also are against the provision of Land Records Manual, because the Lekhpal has not given any P.A.-10 number, while recording the adverse possession of Sheo Shanker over these plots. " Against the order dated 12-10-1972, a revision was filed before the Deputy Director Consolidation by Shiva Shanker. This revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director Consolidation on 11-2-1974. The view taken by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was upheld by the Deputy Director Consolidation. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12-10-1972 and 11-2-1974 by means of the present writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri S. D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has very ably argued this petition and has brought to my notice all the relevant provisions of the Land Records Manual. He has raised the following two contentions before me. 4. THE first contention is that para A-102-C of the Land Records Manual was deleted, with effect from, July 31, 1965 and was substituted. He has raised the following two contentions before me. 4. THE first contention is that para A-102-C of the Land Records Manual was deleted, with effect from, July 31, 1965 and was substituted. After the deletion of para A-102-C, the law laid down by this Court that the fact that form P.A.-10 has not been issued or that there is no mention of the issue of a form P.A.-10 in the relevant entries ceased to have any importance and the consolidation courts have acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not relying upon the entries of Varg-9 in favour of the petitioner, merely because there was no evidence to show that Form P.A.-10 had been issued or that there was any mention of form P.A.10 in the said entries. The second contention of the learned counsel is that the revenue entries were mere pieces of evidence to establish that the petitioner's possession was adverse to that of the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner had further led oral evidence to establish his adverse possession. Since the courts below had not considered the oral evidence led by the petitioner, the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director Consolidation against the petitioner are vitiated in-law. 5. BEFORE considering the submissions made by the petitioner, it is necessary to state a few admitted facts, which are relevant to determine the controversy, in the present petition. It is not disputed that respondent no. 3's name was recorded in the basic year. The claim of the petitioner now rests upon the question as to whether his possession was adverse to that of the respondent no. 3. It has been further found by the authorities that the name of the petitioner has been recorded in 1370F. to 1374F. and from 1375F. onward. It has been further found that in the entries of the above-mentioned years, there is no mention of any P. A. 10 number, nor there is any evidence to show that P. A. 10 had been issued. 6. PARA A-80 prior to its amendment provided that after each Kharif and Rabi partal of a Village, the Lekhpal shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated list of the entries mentioned in paras A-71 to A-73 and para 84 in form P. A. 10. 6. PARA A-80 prior to its amendment provided that after each Kharif and Rabi partal of a Village, the Lekhpal shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated list of the entries mentioned in paras A-71 to A-73 and para 84 in form P. A. 10. PARA A-81 provided that after filling form P. A.-10, the said extracts shall be issued to the person/persons recorded in columns 3, 4 and 5 of the said form or to their heirs, if the person or persons concerned have died, obtaining their signature in the copy of the list retained by him. Another copy of the same has to be sent to the Supervisor-Kanoongo. The Supervisor-Kanoongo has to ensure that extracts have been issued in all the cases and signatures of recipient obtained. If he finds that an extract had not been issued in any case, he shall get it issued in his presence. This is important so that the person affected, if he is aggrieved, may apply for correction of papers to the Tehsildar or the Sub Divisional Officer as the case may be. Varg-9 entry has been specified in para A-124 to be as follows :- "Occupiers of land without the consent of the persons entered in column 4 of the Khasra." From the above provision, therefore, it is clear that whenever an entry is made in Varg-9, it means that the person is occupying the land without the consent of the persons entered in column 4 of the Khasra. Paras A-80 and A-81 provide for issue of notice to the persons affected by the entries in the form Varg-9. The intention of these paras, therefore, is that once Varg-9 entry is found in P. A. 10, notice of P. A. 10 has been issued, so that the persons affected by any entry in Varg-9 can take steps to get that entry corrected or file objections to the recording of such an entry. If after notice no objection is taken, then it is presumed that the occupation of the person in whose favour the entry in Varg-9 has been made is a person who is in adverse possession. 7. PARA A-102-C on which great reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner only lays down the manner in which the lekhpal shall record the fact of possession in the remarks column of the Khasra. 7. PARA A-102-C on which great reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner only lays down the manner in which the lekhpal shall record the fact of possession in the remarks column of the Khasra. Subclause (3) of this para laid down as follows : "If the Lekhpal fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in paras A-80 and A-81, the entry in the remarks column of the Khasra will not be deemed to have been made in the discharge of his official duty." 8. I have quoted sub-clause (3) as this is the main clause on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner. This subclause (3) came into existence w. e. f. 25th July, 1958 and was deleted on 31st July, 1965. This sub-clause (3) only lays down that if the Lekhpal fails to comply with a provision of paras A-80, A-81, the said entry would not be deemed to be in the discharge of his official duty. Sub-clause (3) only emphasised as to when the entry would be deemed to be in due discharge of the official duty. It appears that this provision was made to ensure that the Lekhpals made the entries in the revenue-records strictly in compliance with the provisions of Para A-80 and Para A-81. The provisions of Paras A-80 and A-81 were themselves exhaustive to determine the validity of the entries. In these circumstances, the addition of Para A-102-C or its deletion or substitution does not have effect on the validity of the entry which has to be tested in the light of paragraph A-80 or A-81. In my view, therefore, the mere fact that para A-102-C (3) is deleted and no similar provision was made in the amended provision would not in any manner validate an entry in the remarks column by the Lekhpal which is otherwise in violation of paragraphs A-80 and A-81. In Sheo Mongol Lal v. Deputy Director Consolidation, 1979 AWC 37, Hon'ble R. C. Srivastava, J., as he then was, had occasion to consider the validity of an entry in relation to Para A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual. It was held that the requirement of paras A-80 and A-81 was mandatory and if it was found that the requirements of these paras had not been followed, then the entries can not be held to be legal. It was held that the requirement of paras A-80 and A-81 was mandatory and if it was found that the requirements of these paras had not been followed, then the entries can not be held to be legal. This decision was taken independently of the provisions of para A-102 -C (3) of the Land Records Manual. Similarly in Jamuna Prasad v. D. D. C. Hon'ble M. N. Shukla, J. as then was, also after examining the various provisions 1 of Paras A-80 and 81 held that the issuance of P. A. 10 was mandatory and in the absence of any evidence to show that P. A. 10 was issued, the entry can not be relied upon for the purpose of establishing adverse possession. In this case also the decision has been taken by this Court bereft of the provisions of Para A-102-C of the Land Records Manual. 9. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, pointed out two cases of this court, where para A-102-C has been mentioned. The first case relied upon is Ganga v. D. D. C., 1982 RD 1 decided by Hon'ble K. N. Misra, J. In this case para A-102-C was also considered by this court as it was existing at the relevant time. This para was considered along with the Paras A-80, A-81 and A-82. After considering all the above mentioned paras, this court came to the conclusion that in case there was no reference of P. A. 10 in the entry itself, the entry could have no evidentiary value. But the question which has been convassed before me was not the subject matter of decision in that case. The question as to what would be the effect of an entry in Para 9 without issuance of P. A. 10, in the absence of Para A-102-C was not the subject matter of that decision and hence it can not be treated an authority for the proposition that in the absence of Para A-102-C, the non-issuance of P. A. 10 would make the entry valid. 10. LEARNED counsel has also placed reliance on a decision in Narendra Singh v. Tulsi Ram delivered by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was. 10. LEARNED counsel has also placed reliance on a decision in Narendra Singh v. Tulsi Ram delivered by Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. as he then was. In this case also the para A-102-C was considered but it was not laid down that it was only because of para 102-C that an entry where P. A. 10 was not issued, would become invalid. The question which has been raised before me was not raised in the case of Narendra Singh (Supra). In view of the above, I am of the opinion that by the mere deletion of para A-102-C (3) in 1965, the settled view of this Court did not change viz. that an entry in Varg-9 can not be treated as a valid piece of evidence to establish adverse possession, in the absence of evidence to show that Form P. A. 10 had been issued and an entry had been made in the column about the issuance of such a form. The first submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my mind is not substantiated. 11. IN regard to the second submission, so far as the proposition of law is concerned, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case there is oral evidence on record to establish that a person is in adverse possession besides evidence in the shape of entries in Varg-9, then the courts have a duty cast upon them to consider that oral evidence before recording a finding in regard to adverse possession. IN this view of the matter, I do not think it necessary to refer to the many cases which have been cited by both the parties in support of the respective propositions laying down the circumstances under which oral evidence has to be considered. IN my opinion, it depends upon the facts and. "circumstances of each case. 12. IN the instant case from the record it is clear that the petitioner relied mainly on the entries made in Varg-9 from the year 1370F. onwards. He had entered the witness box along with Ram Abhilakh. The evidence of both these persons have been attached as Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. On a perusal of the evidence of these two witnesses it is clear that none of the witnesses had deposed anything with regard to the adverse possession. onwards. He had entered the witness box along with Ram Abhilakh. The evidence of both these persons have been attached as Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 to the counter-affidavit. On a perusal of the evidence of these two witnesses it is clear that none of the witnesses had deposed anything with regard to the adverse possession. It was in these circumstances that all the three courts had only considered the documentary evidence in support of the plea of the petitioner that his possession was adverse to that of respondent no. 3. IN view of this state of evidence on record, I am unable to hold that the finding in regard to adverse possession based on the basis of the documents on record is vitiated because the courts did not consider the oral evidence on record. There was no material-oral evidence which had a bearing on this question and as such it was not necessary for the courts to consider the said evidence in regard to this question. The second submission also, therefore, in my opinion is not substantiated. In the result, I find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.