JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—These are two connected writ petitions which arises out of same judgment of Deputy Director, Consolidation and they having been already clubbed, both are to be disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Sri Khan, learned Advocate appeared in support of writ petition No. 7997 of 1981 and Sri R.C. Gupta in opposition thereof and thus in other connected writ petition both appeared on their respective side. 3. For better appreciation of facts and arguments, summary of the facts will be useful to be noticed. Writ Petition filed by Sri Khan is to be treated to be first writ petition. In the writ petition of Sri Khan, land comprised in Khata No. 56 is in dispute which was recorded in the basic year in the name of Jag Prasad, Gajua and Bhaiya Lal who is writ petitions. In other writ petition filed by Sri Gupta, learned Advocate, land comprised in Khata No. 61 is in dispute which was recorded in the name of Swami Deen. Both sides filed separate objection under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Petitioner Jag Prasad claimed rights in the land comprised in Khata No. 61 on the basis of long possession which was accepted by all three Courts. At the same time, in the land comprised in Khata No. 56 Swami Deen applied for expunction of the name of Jag Prasad on the ground that his name has wrongly come on record and that was accepted by all three Courts and thus both sides, against concurrent judgments have come up to this Court. 4. Submission of Sri Khan, in his writ petition is that Courts below have wrongly discarded entry in favour of petitioner although it has been clearly proved that petitioner came into possession after getting the land by Zamindar and thereafter, he continued in possession throughout. Submission is that Courts below have given finding that Gajua and Bhaiya Lal co-tenants have admitted that Swami Deen left the village and Zamindar gave land to the petitioner without any written document and since then, petitioner is in possession. Submission is that reasoning given by Courts below that the possession is without consent of co-tenant and therefore, petitioner will not get any right, is clearly wrong. Submission is that reasoning given by Courts below that the possession is without consent of co-tenant and therefore, petitioner will not get any right, is clearly wrong. To support grant of rights in respect to the land of Khata No. 61, submission is that all the three Courts have given concurrent finding that petitioner has been able to prove his right by adverse possession and he has paid land revenue and irrigation charges which is clear from various documents so filed. Thus, submission is that writ petition filed by him is to succeed and writ petition filed by other side is to be dismissed. 5. Sri Gupta, learned advocate in response to the aforesaid, in his petition submits that finding recorded by Courts below about perfection of right by writ petitioner-Jag Prasad by adverse possession is totally perverse. Entry has not been proved to be in accordance with law and that is otherwise also not continuous. It is pointed out that witnesses examined from the side of petitioner has been discarded for no justifiable reason. It is observed that witnesses are of the same caste and that cannot be a ground to discard them. In respect to the writ petition filed by Jag Prasad, Sri Gupta, learned advocate submits that name of Jag Prasad came in the papers without any authority and copy of the order not being available, if without any competent proceeding, name of Jag Prasad came into papers that may not confer any right on him. It is submitted that unless origin of entry can be validly justified; claim by Jag Prasad cannot be accepted. It is on these premises, submission is that writ petition filed by Jag Prasad be dismissed and writ petition filed by Swami Deen be allowed. 6. In view of aforesaid, this Court having examined the rival submission is to deal them. 7. So far as claim of Jag Prasad based on adverse possession is concerned, suffice it to say that there cannot be any presumption about continuity of possession in favour of trespasser rather presumption of possession goes in favour of recorded person. A person claiming right on the basis of adverse possession has to prove his continuous possession year to year. If there is gap in the entries, then that can always be substantiated by leading oral evidence. Here both parties led oral evidence. A person claiming right on the basis of adverse possession has to prove his continuous possession year to year. If there is gap in the entries, then that can always be substantiated by leading oral evidence. Here both parties led oral evidence. Thus, oral evidence can be said to vital either to accept the possession of one or not to accept. On the facts, this Court is satisfied that Courts below have not properly appreciated oral evidence as given by the parties and in a most illegal and cryptic manner without assigning any cogent reason, they have concluded in favour of possession of Jag Prasad. Entries are not continuous for more than statutory period and therefore, oral evidence will have to be discussed in detail and valid/cogent reason will have to be given to discard witnesses of Swami Deen and to accept the continuous possession if it is proved from the witnesses of Jag Prasad. Thus, on this score, matter needs fresh attention in respect to the dispute of the land comprised in Khata No. 61. 8 So far as land comprised in Khata No. 56 is concerned, name of Jag Prasad which was recorded in the basic year has been directed to be expunged. Two recorded co-tenant have clearly stated about possession of Jag Prasad over the land with the consent of Zamindar when Swami Deen left the village. It has been clearly stated that Jag Prasad came into possession and continued as such. Reason which has been given by Courts below that as possession is without consent of the co-tenant and therefore, claimant can have no right is to be tested in the light of other evidence and entries in favour of Jag Prasad. If there was entry in favour of Jag Prasad and his possession was there for quite long, that having not been objected/challenged by Swami Deen by taking recourse to any competent proceeding, Courts will have to consider acceptance of claim of Jag Prasad on the basis of principle of acquisition of co-tenancy right by mode of estoppel and acquiescence. Although this aspect has not been specially argued and placed, but on the facts, claim of writ petitioner-Jag Prasad can be found out in that light. Although this aspect has not been specially argued and placed, but on the facts, claim of writ petitioner-Jag Prasad can be found out in that light. This having escaped notice of Courts below, on fresh consideration, Courts will have to apply its mind and will have to address in respect to the right of Jag Prasad if it can be accepted accordingly. Thus, claim of Jag Prasad for maintaining his entry as stood in the basic year record over Khata No. 56 also needs fresh attention. 9. For the reasons indicated above, this Court is of the view that dispute between both sides in relation to their claim in respect to their respective khatas is to be attended afresh, within time bound frame and that will be complete justice and by this exercise, both sides as on today are to get justice and they will get opportunity of getting fresh decision on detail analysis of all pros and cons in the light of oral and documentary evidence which is available on record. 10. Accordingly, both writ petitions succeed and are allowed. Impugned judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation is hereby quashed. It is made clear that in respect to dispute of both khatas, revisions will be revived and will be decided after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation, if it has come in this judgment either in favour/against any of the party, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment from either of the sides. 11. On the facts, it is further provided that till disposal of revision, both sides will maintain strict status quo in respect to nature and possession over the land in dispute as exists today. Petitions Allowed. ————