Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri S.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th March, 1991 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Garautha under Section 122-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1950") directing for eviction of petitioner from plot No.829/3 area 1.193 hectares and imposing damage of Rs.376.55 and Rs.10 as cost and the revisional order dated 30th April, 1992 passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi rejecting petitioner's revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's father was a landless labour and Scheduled Caste came into possession of land in question prior to 1985 and therefore, in view of Section 122 B (4-F) of Act 1950 he could not have been evicted and it was not necessary for him to seek declaration of his rights. It is further stated that in consolidation proceedings, Form No.2-A, an entry was made showing possession of petitioner's father on the land in question for the last three years which means that prior to 1985 he was in possession. The aforesaid document has been ignored by revisional authority only on the ground that after final publication of consolidation proceedings, the said document has no relevancy. It is contended that in absence of any evidence otherwise, the aforesaid evidence which constitute a document prepared by respondents authorities would have been sufficient to prove the possession of the petitioner before 1985 over the land in question. That being so, under Section 122-B (4-F) of Act 1950 the petitioner could not have been evicted by initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of Act 1950. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has attempted to defend the impugned order on the basis of reasons contained therein. 5. Having considered the submissions and perusing the record, find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The proceedings of eviction could have been initiated against the person who has illegally occupied land of Gaon Sabha. However, a provision was inserted in the statute protecting possession of landless labour belonging to Scheduled Caste if they have got the possession of land in question, belong to Gaon Sabha, prior to 1985. This is a statutory enactment for protecting the rights, therefore, has to be given due effect. However, a provision was inserted in the statute protecting possession of landless labour belonging to Scheduled Caste if they have got the possession of land in question, belong to Gaon Sabha, prior to 1985. This is a statutory enactment for protecting the rights, therefore, has to be given due effect. The Apex Court has considered this matter in Mannorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue (U.P.) and others. 2003(94) RD 538 = AIR 2003 SC 4102 and in paras 8,9 and 10 has said as under: "8. First, the endeavour should be to analyze and identify the nature of the right or protection conferred by Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B. Sub-sections (1) to (3) and the ancillary provisions upto Sub-section (4E) deal inter alia, with the procedure for eviction of unauthorized occupants of land vested in Gaon Sabha. Subsection (4F) carves out an exception in favour of an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe having land being the ceiling of 3.125 acres. Irrespective of the circumstances in which such eligible person occupied the land vested in Gaon Sabha (other than the land mentioned in Section 132), no action to evict him shall be taken and moreover, he shall be deemed to have been admitted as a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights over the land, provided he satisfied the conditions specified in the sub-section. According to the findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the appellate authority, the appellant does satisfy the conditions. If so, two legal consequences follow. Such occupant of the land shall not be evicted by taking recourse to Sub-section (1) to (3) of Section 122B. It means that the occupant of the land who satisfies the conditions under Subsection (4F) is entitled to safeguard his possession as against the Gaon Sabha. The second and more important right which Sub-section (4F) confers on him is that he is endowed with the rights of a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. The deeming provision has been specifically enacted as a measure of agrarian reform, with a thrust on socio-economic justice. The statutorily conferred right of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds its echo in Clause (b) of Section 131. Any person who acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act is recognized under Section 131 as falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The statutorily conferred right of Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights finds its echo in Clause (b) of Section 131. Any person who acquires the rights of Bhumidhar under or in accordance with the provisions of the Act is recognized under Section 131 as falling within the class of Bhumidhar. The right acquired or accrued under Sub-section (4F) is one such right that falls within the purview of Section 131 (b). 9. Thus, Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B not merely provides a shield to protect the possession as opined by the High Court, but it also confers a positive right of Bhumidhar on the occupant of the land satisfying the criteria laid down in that sub-section. Notwithstanding the clear language in which the deeming provision is couched and the ameliorative purpose of the legislation, the learned single Judge of the High Court had taken the view in Ramdin v. Board of Revenue (supra) (followed by the same learned Judge in the instant case) that the Bhumidhari rights of the occupant contemplated by Sub-section (4F) can only blossom out when there is a specific allotment order by the Land Management Committee under Section 198. According to the High Court, the deeming provision contained in Sub-section (4F) cannot be overstretched to supersede the other provisions in the Act dealing specifically with the creation of the right of Bhumidhar. In other words, the view of the High Court was that a person covered by the beneficial provision contained in Sub-section (4F) will have to still go through the process of allotment under Section 198 even though he is not liable for eviction. As a corollary to this view, it was held that the occupant was not entitled to seek correction of revenue records, even if his case falls under Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B. We hold that the view of the High Court is clearly unsustainable. It amounts to ignoring the effect of a deeming provision enacted with a definite social purpose. When once the deeming provision unequivocally provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195, full effect must be given to it. It amounts to ignoring the effect of a deeming provision enacted with a definite social purpose. When once the deeming provision unequivocally provides for the admission of the person satisfying the requisite criteria laid down in the provision as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195, full effect must be given to it. Section 195 lays down that the Land Management Committee, with the previous approval of the Assistant Collector in-charge of the Sub-Division, shall have the right to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any vacant land (other than the land falling under Section 132) vested in the Gaon Sabha. Section 198 prescribes "the order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197". The last part of Sub-section (4F) of Section 122B confers by a statutory fiction the status of Bhumidhar with non transferable rights on the eligible occupant of the land as if he has been admitted as such Section 195. In substance and in effect, the deeming provision declare that the statutorily recognized Bhumidhar should be as good as a person admitted to Bhumidhari rights under Section 195 read with other provisions. In a way, Sub-section (4F) supplements Section 195 by specifically granting the same benefit to a person coming within the protective umbrella of that subsection. The need to approach the Gaon Sabha under Section 195 read with Section 198 is obviated by the deeming provision contained in Sub-section (4F). We find no warrant to constrict the scope of deeming provision. 10. That being the legal position, there is no bar against an application being made by the eligible person coming within the four corners of Sub-section (4F) to effect necessary changes in the revenue record. When once the claim of the applicant is accepted, it is the bounden duty of the concerned revenue authorities to make necessary entries in revenue records to give effect to the statutory mandate. The obligation to do so arises by necessary implication by reason of the statutory right vested in the person coming within the ambit of Sub-section (4F). The lack of specific provision for making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the application as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall in line with the rights statutory recognized. The lack of specific provision for making an application under the Act is no ground to dismiss the application as not maintainable. The revenue records should naturally fall in line with the rights statutory recognized. The Sub-Divisional Officer was therefore within his rights to allow the application and direct the correction of the records. The Board of Revenue and the High Court should not have set aside that order. The fact that the Land Management Committee of Gaon Sabha had created lease hold rights in favour of the respondents herein is of no consequence. Such lease, in the face of the statutory right of the appellant, is no nest in this eye of law and is liable to be ignored." 6. In the present case a document was produced by petitioner which was prepared by the authorities of State Government in consolidation proceedings and therefore, was a kind of statutory document in which the possession of petitioner's father on the property in question was entered into showing his possession prior to 1985 and there was no evidence contrary with the respondents to discredit petitioner's claim that his father got possession over the property in question prior to 1985. The petitioner's claim thus was supported with evidence i.e. Form 2-A prepared during the consolidation proceedings. The petitioner's claim therefore duly fortified by some evidence and it could not have been discarded by the respondents on mere conjecture and surmises and without there being anything to discredit petitioner's claim, as aforesaid. 7. In view thereof the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30th March, 1991 passed by Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Garautha and the revisional order dated 30th April, 1992 passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi are hereby quashed. _____________