ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. :- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by the consolidation authorities. 2. The plots in dispute appear to be Nos. 132/2,192, 137, 159, 157 and 182 recorded in the basic year in the name of respondent No. 5. The petitioner filed an objection under S. 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act) claiming bhumidhari rights and alleging that the name of respondent No. 5 was incorrectly entered in the revenue papers and the same may be expunged. Respondent No. 5 on the other hand filed objection in reply to that of the petitioner claiming adhivasi and sirdari rights particularly on the basis of entries as an `occupant' in 1356 Fasli. Hence in view of S. 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. and LR. Act he became adhivasi and after the appointed date he became sirdar and his name was correctly entered in revenue papers and that the petitioner has got no rights. 3. The Consolidation Officer decided the case partly in favour of the petitioner. Both the parties preferred appeals. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) partly allowed the petitioners` appeal whereas in respect of plots in dispute his appeal was dismissed. Similarly the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 12-5-71 dismissed the petitioner's revision in respect of the plots in dispute, whereas it was allowed in respect of plots Nos. 13 and 132/1 which are not in dispute. Against these orders the present petition has been filed. 4. Sri B. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the entry in the name of respondent No. 5 in 1356 Fasli was made in Zimin 17 of the Land Records Manual, which in view of para 124 of the Manual means tenants of Sir, tenants of Khudkasht of 1333- 34 Fasli and hence he could not be deemed to be a recorded occupant. It can be possible that he (respondent 5) would have claimed Adhivasi rights under S. 20(a) and being a tenant of Sir, but he could not be deemed to be a recorded occupant. He relied on Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram, AIR 1968 SC 466 Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, AIR 1965 SC 54 , Peer Khan v. DDC, 1965 All LJ 591 (DB), Km. He relied on Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram, AIR 1968 SC 466 Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, AIR 1965 SC 54 , Peer Khan v. DDC, 1965 All LJ 591 (DB), Km. Radha Kishori v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1972 Rev Dec 363: (1972 All LJ 738) (DB). 5. Sri M.A. Qadeer appearing for respondent No. 5 on the other hand urged that the entry in Zimin 17 in the name of respondent No. 5 was an entry as an occupant and it means that he was a tenant of Sir and was in actual occupation, hence he was entitled to Adhivasi rights. 6. In this case the point for determination is as to whether respondent No. 5 being recorded in Zimin 17 (a tenant of Sir) can be said to be recorded as an occupant and can he acquire adhivasi rights under S. 20(b) of the U. P. Z. A. and L R. Act. There are string of authorities as to whether a particular entry in 1356 Fasli can be said to be that of a recorded occupant. In Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram (supra) the Supreme Court considering the case of Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, (supra) held on page 468, para 4 as follows :- "But the entries on which reliance was placed by Pritam Singh do not support his case that he was recorded as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli. In the certified extract of the Khasra for 1356 Fasli (Ext. A 1) tendered in evidence by Pritam Singh in the Column `name and caste of cultivator' the entry is Tota Ram and others and in the column for `remarks' the entry is Pritam Singh s/o Pyarelal of Sankuri. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of the U.P. Tenancy Act or instructions issued by the revenue authorities which tend to establish that the name of an occupant of land is liable to be entered in the column reserved for `remarks'. In order that a person may be regarded as an adhivasi of a piece of land, Section 20(b) of Act 1 of 1951 requires that his name must be recorded in the Khasra or Khatauni for 1356 Fasli as an occupant. In order that a person may be regarded as an adhivasi of a piece of land, Section 20(b) of Act 1 of 1951 requires that his name must be recorded in the Khasra or Khatauni for 1356 Fasli as an occupant. The Assistant Collector has pointed out that according to paragraph 87 of the Land Records Manual it is necessary for a Patwari to make an enquiry about the status of the occupant, and if he thinks that a claimant is an occupant, he should enter the name in red ink in khasra as"Kabiz, Sajhi etc". Admittedly Pritam Singh was not shown as kabiz or sajhi nor was the entry posted in red ink." 7. After making that observation and considering the case of Amba Prasad the Supreme court held that the entry of 1356 Fast recorded in the remarks column in the name of Pritam Singh s/o Pyarelal of Sankuri was not an entry as an occupant and he did not acquire the adhivasi rights. 8. The case of Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, AIR 1965 SC 54 (supra) and the Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v. Khalil-ul-Rahman, AIR 1961 SC 143 was also considered in Peer Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1965 All LJ 591 (supra), by a Division Bench of this court and it was held on page 593 as follows : "This very principle has been accepted again in the subsequent case of Amba Prasad. In the case before us the question, therefore, that arises for decision is whether a sub-tenant can be said to be a person holding on behalf of the chief tenant or not. We find no difficulty in holding that a sub-tenant must be held to be a person holding on behalf of the chief tenant". On the same page it was further held as follows :- "A sub-tenant, no doubt, is the occupant qua his chief tenant, but his occupation is also on behalf of the chief tenant. That is precisely why in the case of a sub-tenant also separate provisions has been made for acquisition of rights by him under section 20(a)(ii) of the Act. Sub-tenants acquire rights under that provision and not as occupants. That is precisely why in the case of a sub-tenant also separate provisions has been made for acquisition of rights by him under section 20(a)(ii) of the Act. Sub-tenants acquire rights under that provision and not as occupants. This provision was necessitated only because sub-tenants had to be deemed to be holding on behalf of their chief tenants in exactly the same manner in which a chief tenant holds on behalf of his lesser and a Thekadar or a mortgagee holds on behalf of the proprietor from whom he has obtained the theka or the mortgage. This case, therefore, comes within the exception laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court themselves in the case of Amba Prasad." Similarly another Division Bench of this Court in Km. Radha Kishori v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1972 All LJ 738 at 742 (supra) held as follows :- "A person, who is, in fact, a tenant of Sir and claims Adhivasi rights under Section 20(a)(i) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, can acquire such rights only under this provision and even if he can be considered to be recorded occupant by virtue of the fact that he is entered as tenant of Sir in the records of 1356 Fasli, he cannot acquire adhivasi right under section 20(b)(i)." 9. In view of the aforesaid observations made in the aforesaid cases of this Court as also of the Supreme Court, it is clear that a tenant of Sir holds on behalf of the proprietor and he could not be deemed to be a recorded occupant nor he can acquire rights under section 20(b)(i). Further in order that an entry can be treated to be of a recorded occupant, it must be made in accordance with para 87 of the Land Records Manual. The entry in 1356 Fasli in the name of respondent No. 5 was not made in accordance with para 87 of the Land Records Manual. It is a different matter that if he would have claimed rights under S. 20(a)(i) of being a tenant of Sir and would have proved that he was actually a tenant of Sir and would have led evidence to that effect, he might have been entitled for adhivasi rights under that sub-section. It is a different matter that if he would have claimed rights under S. 20(a)(i) of being a tenant of Sir and would have proved that he was actually a tenant of Sir and would have led evidence to that effect, he might have been entitled for adhivasi rights under that sub-section. But the respondent No. 5, did not claim his rights under that sub-section nor the consolidation authorities have held respondent No. 5 to be entitled to adhivasi and sirdari rights under that sub-section, rather they have held that the respondent No. 5 being a tenant of Sir would be deemed to be recorded occupant under S. 20(b). I am of the opinion that being a tenant of Sir the respondent No. 5 cannot be deemed to be a recorded occupant and he could not acquire adhivasi rights. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered this aspect of the matter in para 9 of his order. 10. The orders of the consolidation authorities are, accordingly, manifestly erroneous and deserve to be quashed. 11. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26-8-67 passed by the Consolidation Officer, order dated 19-9-68 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the order dated 12- 5-71 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in so far as they are in respect of the plots in dispute in this petition are hereby quashed. As a necessary corollary the name of the petitioner should be entered as Sirdar/Bhumidhar over the plots in dispute. Under the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.