R. B. MEHROTRA, J. The present second appeal has been filed by the defen dant-appellant. The facts necessary for the decision of the appeal are as under. 2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 226 of 1981 in the court of Ilnd Additional Munsif, Bulandshahr against Nagar Palika, Bulandshahr and its Ex ecutive Officer wherein the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is the bhumidhar with transferable rights of plot No. 1510/2 area 2 bigha 13 biswa, situate at town Baran, Pargana, Baran, Tahsil and Distt. Bulandshahr and claimed that the plaintiff is the owner of the said plot and is in possession thereof and also contended that the respondents have no concern with the said land, in spite of it, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and want to plant trees in the said area. The plaintiff prayed that the respondents be permanently restrained from interferring with the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent, Nagar Palika, Bulandshahr and its Executive Officer. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issues. Following issues are relevant for the purpose of the decision of the present appeal : (1) Whether the plaintiff is the bhumidhar with transferable rights of the plot in dis pute as alleged in paragraph 1 of the plaint? (2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the plot in dispute? (3) Whether the suit is barred by principles of res judicata, if so, its effect? 5. The trial court on a detailed consideration of the evidence of the parties dismissed the plaintiffs suit. 6. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a civil appeal No. 87 of 1982 in the court of District Judge, Bulandshahr. The aforesaid civil appeal has been allowed by IV Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr vide his judgment dated 20. 12. 1984. 7. This Court admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law : 1. The suit having been dismissed, there was no occasion for the appellant for filing cross-objection. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from illegality, on the said count? 2. Whether from the evidence on record, it has been proved that the Nagar Palika had acquired the land in dispute in 1939 and took possession in 1940? 3. The suit having been dismissed, there was no occasion for the appellant for filing cross-objection. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court suffers from illegality, on the said count? 2. Whether from the evidence on record, it has been proved that the Nagar Palika had acquired the land in dispute in 1939 and took possession in 1940? 3. Whether the suit could have been filed without serving notice under Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act? 8, An application was filed by the appellant in this Court under Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C, for bringing on record certain public documents in regard to the plot in dispute. This Court vide its order dated 23. 4. 1992 allowed the said applica tion in part and permitted the appellant to bring on record only an extract of the copy of the Nazul register wherein the plot in dispute was recorded as Nazul land The order passed by this Court on 23. 4. 92 is being quoted herein for reference. "the appellant has filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C. P. C. for admit ting certain documents as additional evidence in the present second appeal. One of the documents which has been filed as additional evidence is a. certified copy of the extract of Nazul Register wherein the plot in dispute i. e. plot, No, 1510 has been recorded as Nazui property and it has also been recorded that for the aforesaid plot, notifications under Sec tions 4 and 6 have already been issued. The controversy in the present second appeal is that the plaintiff is claiming that he has become bhumidhar of the disputed plot. One of the questions, which requires decision in the present second appeal is as to how the plaintiff has acquired bhumidhari rights over the Nazul property. For the reason, I am of the opinion, that the certified copy of the extract of the Nazul register is necessary for doing complete justice between the parties and as such I admit the aforesaid document as addi tional evidence in exercise of my powers under Order XLI, Rule 27s C. RC. The prayer made in the application for admitting rest of the documents as additional evidence is rejected. The plaintiff-respondent is granted three weeks time for filing reply to the aforesaid evidence filed by the defendant-appellant. The prayer made in the application for admitting rest of the documents as additional evidence is rejected. The plaintiff-respondent is granted three weeks time for filing reply to the aforesaid evidence filed by the defendant-appellant. List this case on 18th of May, 1992 as part-heard. " 9. The respondents were afforded opportunity for filing documents in reply to the aforesaid documents brought on record by the appellant. Despite time having been given, the respondents did not file any document rebutting the evidence per mitted to be brought on record by this Court under Order XLl, Rule 27, C. RC. The document filed by the appellant remained uncontroverted. 10. The certified copy of the extract of the Nazul register filed in this Court fees been exhibited as A-l. In the said document plot Nos. 1500, 1509 and 1510, have been recorded as the Nazul property. The plots are situate within the limits of Nagar Palika, Bulandshahr. The boundaries of the plots have been given. 11. In the present case the plaintiff has put up a claim of bhumidhari rights in regard to plot No. 1510/2 area 2 Bigha 13 Biswa. Entire plot No. 1510 having an area of 5 Bigha, 13 Biswa has beer, recorded as Nazul property in the and Nazul register. There is a presumption of correctness regarding the entries in the Nazul register. The said presumption has not been rebutted by the plaintiff-respondent. v2. The aforesaid document also clinchingly establishes that the plot in dis pute is situate within the limits of Bulandshahr Municipal Board. 13. Section 1 (2) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the area demarcated for Municipal Boards. Thus it is clear that the plaintiff could not have claimed bhummidari rights over a land situate within the limits of Municipal Board of Bulandshanr, unless the plaintiff has proved and demonstrated that the said area was notified to be agricultural land under the provisions of Urban Area Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. No such evidence has been filed by the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it is clinchingly established that the plaintiff has completely failed to prove that the plaintiff was the owner of the plot in dispute. 14. It is settled principle of law that entries in the relevant records cannot confer any right. No such evidence has been filed by the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, it is clinchingly established that the plaintiff has completely failed to prove that the plaintiff was the owner of the plot in dispute. 14. It is settled principle of law that entries in the relevant records cannot confer any right. The presumption of correctness of revenue entries under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act is rebuttable. The appellant has rebutted the said presumption of the correctness of the entry by filing an extract of Nazul register in this Court wherein plot in dispute has been recorded as Nazul land. 15. It is settled principle of law that no right can accrue to any individual on Nazul land which is a Government land unless the said right is so conferred by the Government. The plaintiff has completely failed to demonstrate as to how the said right was conferred on the plaintiff. 16. In accordance with Nazul Manual only a lease could have been executed in favour of the plaintiff. The lessee can enjoy the lease as per terms of grant, however, the plaintiff has not come forward to plead or prove any such case. Even otherwise no bhumidhari right can accrue on the basis of any such lease. The entry of bhumidhari right of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 on the said plot was patently illegal and the plaintiff cannot succeed in his suit on the basis of the said entry. 17. In the circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the plaintiff to have further proved how the plaintiff became bhwnidhar of Nazul land on the basis of any right so conferred on him by the Government. The plaintiff having failed to demonstrate the same, the finding of the lower appellate court suffers from a patent illegality in view of the additional evidence filed by the appellant in this Court. 18. Accordingly, I am of the view that the land in dispute was a Nazul land and the plaintiff did not acquire any right over the said land. The suit of the plaintiff for plot in dispute deserves to be dismissed. The judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained in view of the additional evidence filed by the appellant in this Court which has been admitted. 19. The suit of the plaintiff for plot in dispute deserves to be dismissed. The judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained in view of the additional evidence filed by the appellant in this Court which has been admitted. 19. Accordingly, I set aside the judgment of the IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi, dated 20. 12. 84, passed in civil appeal No. 87/1992 and restore the judgment of the trial court dated 27. 1. 1982 passed in Suit No. 206 of 1981. 20. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout. Appeal allowed. .