S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. In this peti tion, challenge is to the order dated 19-12-2005 passed by Deputy Directory consolidation, Sidharthnagar in revision whereby order dated 28-11-2001 passed by Settlement Officer Con solidation, Sidharthnagar in Appeal No. 622 and 623 under Section 11 (1) of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act was affirmed. 2. The dispute revolves round plot Nos. 159 admeasuring 1/0-034,159 ad measuring 2/0-082, 137 admeasuring 2/0-044 and 209 admeasuring 2/0-053 situated in village Bishanupur Ahedmali, Tappa- Chawara, Pargana Basi East, District Sidharthnagar. It would appear that in the basic year Awadu, Parushram and Pachu sons of Kaipa Veva Vindashvaree were rocorded as Bhumidhars. To begin with, an objec tion was filed by Pachu and other con testing Opp. parties 3 to 6 seeking division of the land in dispute on the ground that Kalpa was spirited away by death and her property had devolved upon them. Another set of objection was filed by petitioners claiming rights on the basis of possession spanning about 30 years-otherwise than in ac cordance with law-attended with prayer that they be declared as Bhumidhar on the basis of possession and the names of recorded tenure holders be ex punged from the revenue record. . 3. The Consolidation Officer, who was seized of the matter, passed order dated 28-11-1990 by which he directed expunction of the names of contesting Opp. parties attended with further direc tion to record names of petitioners as Bhumidhar in the revenue record. Ag grieved by and dissatisfied with the order, an appeal was filed before Settle ment Officer Consolidation by Awadhu father of contesting Opp. parties 5 and 6 which culminated in being allowed and order of Consolidation Officer being set aside attended with further relief of declaring Opp. parties as Bhumidhar and expunction of the names of petitioners. In the revision, which came to be preferred thereafter, the order of Settlement Officer Con solidation came to be affirmed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have also been taken through the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners began his submission urging that Pachu contesting Opp. party who was one of the cotenant also, had admitted to petitioners possession over the property extending to about40 years in his statement dated 26-9-1990. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have also been taken through the record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners began his submission urging that Pachu contesting Opp. party who was one of the cotenant also, had admitted to petitioners possession over the property extending to about40 years in his statement dated 26-9-1990. Learned Counsel, propped up the judg ment of the Consolidation officer can vassing that while considering the case of parties, the authority has taken into reckoning Khatauni 1373 Fasli to 1377 Fasli ar:d 1378 Fasli and Khasra of 1376 for 12 years from 1376 Fasli. Assailing the decision of appellate as well as revisional authority, he canvassed that their decisions- reversing the order of Consolidations officer, were impaired by reason of being arrived at without reckoning into consideration the relevant materials. He further can vassed that the petitioners possession is proved from evidence on record otherwise than in accordance with law and therefore, proceeds the submis sions, the impugned judgments of both the authorities below suffer from the blemish of an error on the face of record and are liable to b& quashed. 6. It would first take for scrutiny of the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The quintessence of the finding is that the Settle ment Officer Consolidation, found, taking into reckoning the admission of Pachu that there was enough materials on record that he never made any such statement containing his admission and further that admission, if any, seemed to have been made by some imposter. Pachu also confuted his thumb impression/signatures. The fur ther finding of the appellate Court is that entries made in Column 9, were not in accordance with law and that PA.-10 was neither issued nor served to the recorded tenure holders. It was further found by Settlement Officer Consolida tion that the entries examined by it were also not in continuation and that petitioners were not found in unabated and continuous possession. On the other hand, the finding is that Opp. par ties were found in possession of land in dispute. These findings received rein forcement in revision and it was also , recorded by the revisional authority that petitioners were not able to prove their continuous possession for statutory period of twelve years attended with fur ther finding that there was no material on record that RA. par ties were found in possession of land in dispute. These findings received rein forcement in revision and it was also , recorded by the revisional authority that petitioners were not able to prove their continuous possession for statutory period of twelve years attended with fur ther finding that there was no material on record that RA. 10 was issued or served to the recorded tenure holders. 7. When confronted with the above findings, learned Counsel for the petitioners could not adduce or point to any evidence or materials on record to buttress his submissions that RA. 10 was ever issued before making entry in. the revenue record i. e. in khasra in column No. 9 which may b9 indicative or suggestive of the fact whether the pos session was made in accordance with law or not. In this perspective, I am of the view that reliance placed on entry by the petitioners was rightly discountenanced by the appellate as well as the revisional authority for treating it as evidence of adverse possession otherwise than in accordance with law as postulated under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act. 8. Besides the factual aspect, another question of seminal importance that arises for consideration is whether any Bhumidhari right under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act, 1950 could be created on the basis of admission made by a private person. 9. From a careful scrutiny of the scheme of the U. PZ. A and L. P. Act, it is manifest that under Section 4 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act, it is clearly postu lated that all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh vested in the States and stood transferred free from all encumbrances of area mentioned therein with effect from July 1952. To be precise, It would appear that various rights were created by the State in favour of various- class of persons, all private wells, trees building along with area appertaining there to were deemed to be settled with a person in actual possession under Section 9 of the Act. The State has created Bhumidhari rights in favour of class of persons who were holding rights under the U. P Tenancy Act like Sir Khudkast, Grove holders or other kind of tenants as detailed in Section 18 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act. The State has created Bhumidhari rights in favour of class of persons who were holding rights under the U. P Tenancy Act like Sir Khudkast, Grove holders or other kind of tenants as detailed in Section 18 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act. Similarly, under Section 19 of the Act, sirdari rights were conferred on number of per sons having different kinds of tenancies under the U. P Tenancy Act mentioned in the said section. Again similarly in Section 21 of the Act, asami rights were conferred on different persons who were in possession on the date immedi ately preceding the date of vesting. The persons who were in actual possession and were also recorded occupants under Section 20 of the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act were conferred adhivasi rights and after following certain procedures, prescribed under the Act, they were also conferred sirdari rights. 10. Subsequently, the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act came to be amended and as a consequence, two kinds of Bhumidhari rights were created i. e. Bhumidhari with transferable rights and Bhumidhari with non- transferable rights. The various other provisions incorporated by sub sequent amendments in the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act also created certain rights, of course, subject to satisfying certain conditions in favour of certain class of persons. Thus, it leaves no manner of doubt that Bhumidhari or asami or any other kind Of rights created under the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act are creation of statutes and unless the conditions/in gredients of statute are satisfied, any person claiming right under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act whether Bhumidhari with transferable rights or Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights, cannot be con ferred any Bhumidhari right or any right under the U. P Consolidation of Hold ings Act could be created or acquired, confirmed, extinguished and denied only on the basis of statutory rights flow ing from statute and not otherwise. 11. Now the question for con sideration is whether admission of a person made in a suit or any proceed ing could confer any right under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act. 11. Now the question for con sideration is whether admission of a person made in a suit or any proceed ing could confer any right under the U. P. Z. A. and L. P. Act. It admits of no doubt that an admission may be in a statement on oath, in examination-in chief or cross-examination; it may be in the pleading or contained in a com promise arrived at in suit or proceeding. As discussed above, the rights under the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act being creation of the statute, cannot be extinguished by admission or denial by a private per son and it therefore, follows that any admission made by a private person cannot Confer any Bhumidhari rights in favour of any other person unless the requirements of statute are satisfied An admission occurring at any place ". an, at best, be construed to be an estoppel against the person making any admis sion but it cannot operate as an estop pel against the statute. As Bhumidhari rights are creation of statute and there fore, the same assumes the complexion of statutory rights and anybody cannot claim Bhumidhari rights under the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act on the basis of an admission of any party to a suit or proceeding. It is also worthy of notice, here that the revenue records are main tained by the collector representing State and therefore revenue entries which are presumed to be correct un less proved otherwise, cannot be tinkered with unless the Collector repre senting the State is also a part" to such admission or compromise. To elucidate further, any admission made by a per son in any proceeding cannot confer any statutory rights. 12. There are three exceptions to this proposition; in case of claim of a co tenancy rights in a land coming from common ancestors or joint acquisition of land by two or more persons or ac quisition of land by joint nucleus and in case a person makes an admission at any place in any suit or proceeding, the same may be taken to be one of the pieces of evidence along with other evidence. In case a person admits that property has descended on him from his ancestors and all descendants are co-tenure holders unless the evidence of acquisition by ancestors is on record, mere admission would not be con strued as anything of substance except that this be taken as one of the evidence along with other materials. Similarly, in case of joint acquisition, a statement will be taken as a piece of evidence along with other materials to prove joint acquisition by two or more persons for given tenancy rights. Similar is the provision in relation to acquisition by joint nucleus or by a family. The statutory right of co-tenancy could be created on the basis of admission in case the other corroborative evidence is also available on record but mere statement without there being any cor roborative evidence for conferring a co tenancy rights on any land in dispute cannot be a ground for creating statutory co-tenancy rights under the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act also. 13. The second exception is in case of family settlement. In case a fami ly settlement is on record, the admis sion made by a person in a suit or proceeding of family settlement may be read along with other materials of family settlement but mere admission or state ment would not confer any rights for seating exclusive or co-tenancy rights on any land. Though in the present case, statement or so-called admission of one of co-tenants was already rejected by the appellate Court as well as by the revisional Court on the ground that the person had never made any such admission and that the statement containing admission was made by some imposter and not by the co-tenant concerned. Even if the statement which is said to be having complexion of an admission at its face value, it would not confer any statutory Bhumidhari rights in favour of petitioners. Mere reliance on a statement without there thing any supporting documents including revenue entries in accordance with law and other admissible evidence on record for acquisition or conferment of any exclusive Bhumidhari rights under the Act, would not furnish foundation for conferring rights on a person and there fore, I am of the considered view, the Courts below rightly discarded the petitioners claim. There is no error ap parent on the face of the record war ranting interference and in the cir cumstances, it is accordingly held that the judgments passed by appellate as well as revisional authority are sound and supported with well-knit reasoning and do not suffer from any error of law and fact. 14. In view of discussions supra, the intention of the legislature while enacting the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act is clearly borne out that Bhumidhari with transferable or non-transferable rights, savior any other kind of tenure holders is a creation of statute and as such a suit under Section 229 B of the U. P. Z. A and L. P. Act or objection under Section 9-A of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act cannot be decreed and judgment and order cannot be passed merely on