JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of arguments, no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents even though the case was taken up in the revised list, accordingly only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard. 2. Matter relates to agricultural Plot No. 321, area 14 biswas, situate in village Kanspur Gugauli, District Fatehpur. At the start of the consolidation, Raghunandan, respondent No. 1 filed objections that he was in possession over the land in dispute, hence the name of Ganesh, the grand-father of the petitioner recorded in the revenue records should be expunged and his name should be entered. The names of respondents No. 1 to 2 were entered in the revenue records under Clause (IX) as trespasser. Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the contesting respondents and dismissed their objections. True copy of order of C.O. Fatehpur dated 17.9.1973 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition (passed in Case No. 2149 of 1973). Appeal filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by S.O.C. on 26.12.1973. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, revision was filed by the petitioner being Revision No. 126, Shanker Singh v. Raghunandan Singh and others Revision was dismissed on 17.7.1974, hence this writ petition. 3. The case of the contesting respondents was that they were in possession for more than statutory period prescribed for filing of suit against trespasser (six years at the relevant time). The appellate Court has observed that in the revenue records possession of contesting respondents was recorded from 1366 to 1377 Fasli except for the years 1369 Fasli and 1373 Fasli. The appellate Court held that in the two crucial years 1369 and 1373 Fasli, the names of contesting respondents were not recorded in the revenue records as occupant either accidentally or due to mischief of lekhpal. It was further held that without any order, lekhpal could not delete the names of the contesting respondents for two years in between. Revisional Court also adopted the same line of reasoning. 4. In my opinion, judgments and orders passed by S.O.C. & D.D.C. cannot be sustained. The sole or at least the main basis of the claim of the respondents was recording of their possession in the revenue records. Accordingly, they could not be heard to say that entries in their favour should be considered and the entries against them should be ignored. The sole or at least the main basis of the claim of the respondents was recording of their possession in the revenue records. Accordingly, they could not be heard to say that entries in their favour should be considered and the entries against them should be ignored. Moreover, both the Courts below (S.O.C. & D.D.C.) were of the opinion that the deletion of names of the contesting respondents during 1369 & 1373 Fasli was not in accordance with law, hence they should also have considered as to whether the entry of the names of the contesting respondents for the first time in 1366 Fasli was in accordance with law or not. No evidence was led by the contesting respondents to prove that the entry of their names for the first time was in accordance with Paras A-80 & A-81 of Land Record Manual, Pa-ka-10 was issued and entry was made with red ink. No diary was also produced as required by the said paragraphs. 5. Accordingly, as contesting respondents could not prove their adverse possession for continuous six years, hence their objections could not be allowed. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Impugned orders passed by S.O.C. and D.D.C. are set aside and order passed by the C.O. is restored. ————