JUDGMENT P.B. Vyas Bhiman, Chairman - The salient facts giving rise to this reference in a case of correction of papers are as follows:- Tahsildar, Lucknow, on June 12, 1981 reported that in respect of the plots in dispute it had been found that in the Khatauni for 1384 to 1389F. the name of the present revisionist was recorded as Sirdar from 1380F. He also found there was no mention of any supporting Judicial order. It appears that the Tahsildar found through his own inquiry that in fact there was no such order nor any Patta executed in respect of the disputed land which in earlier papers seem to be correctly shown as Usar-Navin Parti. The version of the present revisionist before the trial court was that she had been recorded as Sirdar in C.H. Form 45 and thereafter she also obtained Bhumidhari rights by depositing an amount equal to 20 times rent. It was also claimed on her behalf that some further transfer had also taken place and in any case a long standing entry of this nature cannot be corrected in such summary proceedings. These arguments were opposed before the trial court by the learned counsel for Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow. According to him by Government Gazette Notification this area had come into the management of the Nagar Mahapalika and the land in dispute being Gaon Sabha property now vested for management in the Nagar Mahapalika. Learned counsel supported the correction stating that the entry in favour of the revisionist was a complete fake. The trail court of S.D.O. after taking the evidence of the local Lekhpal and the documents before him found that in the Khatauni for 1363 F to 1365 F. the land was recorded as Usar and it was also recorded as Usar Navin Parti in C.H. Form 41. He could not find any judicial order in support of the sudden change from C.H. Form 41 to C.H. Form 45. Holding the view that if any fake entry had been made during Consolidation Operations it can certainly be corrected by the regular revenue courts after denotification, he proceeded to order correction. This was challenged before the Additional Commissioner who has made the present reference. According to the referral order since according to the recent Khatauni the revisionist was in cultivatory possession her name cannot be ordered to be expunged in these summary proceedings. This was challenged before the Additional Commissioner who has made the present reference. According to the referral order since according to the recent Khatauni the revisionist was in cultivatory possession her name cannot be ordered to be expunged in these summary proceedings. He has, therefore, recommended that the order of the S.D.O. be set aside and the entry in favour of the revisionist be restored. 2. In arguments before me the leaned counsel for the revisionist supporting the reference laid stress on the dictum that long standing entries are not the subject matter of correction proceedings. He stated that the presumption of correctness attached to the entries in the record of rights and the burden was on the opposite party to show that there was an error. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand stressed the fact that the land was recorded as Usar in 1363 to 1365F. and there is no explanation how the name of the revisionist came to be recorded over these plots. 3. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the above argument. It is true that a presumption of correctness attaches to the entries in the record of rights but this is a rebuttable presumption. It is also true that the burden is on the applicant for correction to show that there is in fact an error. However, the burden is a shifting one. In this case the report of the Tahsildar and the finding of the trial court show that prima facie there was an abrupt change in the entries from C.H. Form 41 to C.H. Form 45. It was also found that in the Khatauni for 1363 to 1365F. the land stood recorded as Usar. The burden therefore, now shifts to the revisionist to show that there was a valid order by means or which her name came to be recorded as Sirdar. This she has not been able to show. The inquiries of the Tahsildar as a person responsible to the Collector for the correct maintenance of records had also shown that no such judicial order in favour of the revisionist had been passed. In these circumstances the burden thrown on the revisionist to show how her name came to be recorded has not been discharged. The inquiries of the Tahsildar as a person responsible to the Collector for the correct maintenance of records had also shown that no such judicial order in favour of the revisionist had been passed. In these circumstances the burden thrown on the revisionist to show how her name came to be recorded has not been discharged. According to the judgment of the trial court there was not even a plausible explanation offered with or without any proof. The dictum that long standing entries should not be disturbed in correction proceedings cannot obviously apply to entries which are shown to be ab initio fake. Otherwise there would be an open invitation to the lower revenue staff to make unauthorised alteration in the record entrusted to them with an assurance that if they are discovered with the lapse of time only the costly process of regular suit can undo the mischief. In this view of the matter, I find that the order of the trial court is perfectly proper and I find myself unable to accept the reference. The reference is discharged and the revision is dismissed.