JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: On 4.2.1970 under Section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector First Class. The pleading has set forth the content ion that she is bhumidhar tenant in possession of the land; before abolition she was a fixed rate tenant and in consequence of abolition became bhumidhar. She is a widow and her husband was invalid because of paralysis 15 years before his death. As she was incapable of cultivating, the land was given on Shikmi to Dhanni D/1 for tilling. Two years ago he has been pushed away and she is cultivating the land. Also Dhanni did not acquire rights of a sirdar tenant and is merely an Asami. The entry of his name as sirdar is erroneous. The error came to notice in survey operation; her objection for correction has been summarily dismissed. The relief to declare her bhumidhar tenant in possession has been prayed for. 2. The suit is resisted by Dhanni D/1 who files his written statement on 22.11.1971, He claims that Smt. Radhika Kunwari is not bhumidhar tenant in possession. She was not fixed Rate tenant before abolition and never acquired rights of a bhumidhar tenant in consequence of abolition. Also refuted is claim that her husband was invalid because of paralysis. The land was never given to her on Shikmi basis. On the contrary, he has taken adverse possession over the land in the life time of Har Narain. On abolition he became Adhivasi/sirdar tenant in possession. Numerous other pleas are set forth in defence. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were formulated on 7.2.1972 and 1.6.1973. An application for amendment in plaint is moved on 3.4.1973 to bring in new plot No. 31, area 33 decimal in place of old No. 44, mistakenly set out in plaint.. Parties have been given chance to lead evidence; documental and oral. They have made their representation. On 25.9.73 Assistant Collector First Class enters an order decreeing the suit. 3. Defendant Dhanni D/1 has appealed in Commissioner's. On 26.9.1974 Addl. Commissioner has entered an order of dismissal of appeal. Hence second appeal by defendant Dhanni D/1. 4. Heard the counsel and perused the record. 5. The counsel for the appellant has urged that defendant's case of adverse possession has not received proper treatment by the two courts below. It is apt to consider the same. Commissioner has entered an order of dismissal of appeal. Hence second appeal by defendant Dhanni D/1. 4. Heard the counsel and perused the record. 5. The counsel for the appellant has urged that defendant's case of adverse possession has not received proper treatment by the two courts below. It is apt to consider the same. Har Narain, husband of Smt. Radhika Kunwari, has died in the year 1945. The suit has been instituted on 4.2.1970. This comes to 25 years of adverse possession against the interest of tenure-holder. But, curiously enough, there are no khasra entries in support of tall claim of continuous possession save Khatauni entry of Shikmi of 1359-F and 1356-F. Defendant-appellant has disclaimed any contract of sub-tenancy. The oral evidence of Rajdeo D.W. 1 and Kanhai D.W. 2 is thin and is disproved by aforesaid Khatauni entries. The case of adverse possession is not found established. A significant point deserves notice. Under law, rights in land will accrue by reason of adverse possession even against a disabled person within the meaning of Section 157 Z.A. Act; just the case pleaded in paragraph 7 of written statement by defendant Dhanni D/1. But permissible possession stemning from contract sits quite ill with a claim of adverse possession, not proven. 6. The claim of Shikmi is based on plaintiff's affirmation and denied by Dhanni. Learned counsel has argued that Khatauni entry of 1356-F will mean that he is an occupant within meaning of Section 20 (b) (ii) ZA Act. This point needs close scrutiny. A person claiming to be in occupation should be in occupation in his own right and not on behalf of some one else: AIR 1961 SC 143 . The case of adverse possession has been dismissed; the entry of occupant as sub-tenant is not in his own right. Also in Amba Prasad's case: AIR 1965 SC 54 . it has been said that "according to paragraph 86 Land Records Manual it is necessary for a Patwari to make enquiry about the status of an occupant and if he thinks that a claimant is an occupant, he should enter the name in red ink in Khasra as Qabiz, Sajhi etc. and the entry be posted in red ink". So is not the entry here. The position has been made more clear in 1965 ALJ 591. and the entry be posted in red ink". So is not the entry here. The position has been made more clear in 1965 ALJ 591. It has been held that "a sub-tenant, no doubt is the occupant qua the chief tenant, but his occupation is also on behalf of chief tenant. This is precisely why in a case of a sub-tenant a separate provision has been made for acquisition of rights by him under Section 20 (a) (ii) of the Act. Sub-tenants acquire rights in that provision and not as occupants. This provision was necessitated only because sub-tenants have 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 thekedar or a mortgagee holds on behalf of the proprietor from whom he is obtaining the theka or the mortgage". From this statement of legal position it is clear that Dhanni D/1 is not an occupant as a Shikmi tenant within the meaning of Section 20 (b) (ii) of the Act. The counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to Jagdeso Singh v. Mihi Lal (1980)1 S.C.C. 597 : AIR 1981 S.C. 1005 .. The position postulated in this legal precedent is dissimilar. 7. On a consideration of foregoing, the second appeal has no force and is dismissed. 8. This order shall also govern second appeal No. 111 (z)of 1974-75/Ballia.