JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.5.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi in Revision No. 1254 (Ram Roop and another v. Jagvidit and others) whereby the Revision has been allowed, the order dated 3.7.1974 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation has been set aside, the name of Jagvidit has been expunged from the Revenue Record and the names of Ram Roop and Ram Harak has been directed to continue therein. 2. The dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No. 320M area 0.30 acres in Khata No. 158. In the basic year i.e. 1379F the names of Ram Roop and Ram Harak was recorded. Proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act started on the objection filed by Jagvidit. The Consolidation Officer framed the issue as to whether Jagvidit Singh and others are Sirdar on the basis of possession. He recorded that Jagvidit Singh has shown his possession over the land since before the date of vesting on the basis of entries recorded in Khasra of 1363F, 1365F, 1366 and 1372F. The Consolidation Officer found that in the Khasra of 1370F the names of Jagvidit and Ram Roop and Ram Harak is recorded. He held that in certain years the name of Jagvidit is not recorded but when Ram Roop and Ram Harak had failed to prove that they had taken back the possession from Jagvidit then they had not been able to establish that the land was given by them to Jagvidit only for cultivation on Sajha or Adhaiya. 3. Learned counsel for the parties explain that Sajha or Adhaiya means the giving of possession of the land by the tenure holder to another person for the purpose of cultivation on sharing the harvested crop half and half in a season. 4. The Consolidation Officer perused the Khatauni of 1371F to 1373F where there was an entry made by supervision kanungo recording the name of Jagvidit in Column 9. He held that in view of the long standing entries in favour of Jagvidit the entry of 1356F in favour of Ram Roop and Ram Harak has lost its relevance since they have lost their rights or claim of Sirdari rights having lost possession over land even though Jagvidit had admitted the taking of the land on Sajha for one year. The Consolidation Officer recorded that Jagvidit was in possession for more than six years hence by virtue of possession he became Sirdar. 5. Ram Roop and Ram Harak filed Appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act against the order dated 8.12.1973 of the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer Consolidation agreed with the findings and conclusions of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the Appeal on 3.7.1974. Ram Roop and Ram Harak then preferred a Revision No. 1254 under Section 48(1) of the Act which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17.5.1975 hence this writ petition. 6. When this writ petition was admitted on 23.2.1976 an interim order was passed providing that the petitioner Jagvidit shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute provided he has not been dispossessed already. 7. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner Jagvidit and the Respondent No. 2, Ram Roop died and have been substituted by their heirs and legal representatives. 8. The submission of Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Ram Roop and Ram Harak had taken the land on Sajha from the petitioner Jagvidit. The entry of the name of Ram Roop and Ram Harak in 1356F had no source and it was a first time entry. Since the Respondent No. 2 and 3 Ram Roop and Ram Harak had been been given the land on Sajha hence they could not acquire tenancy rights and Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot confer any benefit. He submits that there was no basis for the entry of the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the date of vesting hence the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an illegality in holding that the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entered in 1359F would be from 1356F. According to him the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has not been able to prove adverse possession is erroneous whereas the record clearly establishes the possession of the petitioner. He states that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any evidence to establish their claim of title over the land in dispute. 9. According to him the finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has not been able to prove adverse possession is erroneous whereas the record clearly establishes the possession of the petitioner. He states that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any evidence to establish their claim of title over the land in dispute. 9. Sri D.S.P. Singh has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Jagdish Prasad v. Board of Revenue’ 1960 RD 184 and submits that the meaning of the word ‘occupant’ in Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been clearly explained in relation to Sajhidars and refers to the penultimate paragraph of the judgment. It is quoted hereunder : “Having regard to the context in which the word “occupant” is used in Section 20 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act it appears to us that it refers to a person who claims an exclusive right of occupancy in the land on his own behalf to the exclusion of others. If that be the meaning of word “occupant” as used in Section 20, as we think it is, persons who are recorded merely as Sajhidars or marfatdars or licensees are not included within the term “occupant” persons recorded as qabiz or dawcdar qabiz and persons recorded as tenants or sub-tenants in immediate occupation of the land, though they may not in fact be such tenants or sub-tenants in immediate occupation of the land, though they may not in fact be such tenants or sub-tenants but are trespassers are to be considered as ‘occupants’ within the meaning of Section 20.” 10. He has also referred to a Division Bench decision in the case of ‘Bhaiya Jeet Singh v. State of U.P. and others’, 2006(4) ADJ 552 (DB) and relies on paragraph 10 which is quoted hereunder : “10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that entries in the khewats would be presumed to be true under Section 44 of Land Revenue Act cannot also be construed in his favour inasmuch as the entries in the original khewats itself have been stated to be forged, fictitious and made without jurisdiction. It is settled law that such entries cannot confer any right and the presumption of correctness under Section 44 is rebuttable. It is settled law that such entries cannot confer any right and the presumption of correctness under Section 44 is rebuttable. Sanctity is attached to entries of long standing whereas in this case the alleged entries relate to recent times. Therefore, certified copy of the khewat containing the aforesaid disputed entries will not entitle the petitioner to claim the benefit of Section 44 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. It is therefore found that the petitioner has not come up with sufficient evidence or documents to establish the fact that he is a Lambardar or co-sharer with other Zamindar of the area of 268 acres within the municipal limits of district Ballia from where Urban Area Zamindari has been abolished by notification under the Act. Due to lack of sufficient evidence and due to serious dispute with respect to documents filed by the petitioner this Court cannot effectively adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner that he and other Zamindars are having proprietary rights over 268 acres of land within the municipal limit of district Ballia.” 11. For the very same submission he has cited a decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of ‘Mohd. Ramzan Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others’ 2009 (108) RD 543. 12. In reply Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has stated that the record shows that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in the revenue record in Column 9 since three years prior to 1359F. He states that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been rightly given the benefit of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act being occupants of the land on the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and hence have acquired Sirdari rights. He denies the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and states that the land was given on Sajha by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the petitioner Jagvidit. When the land has been given on Sajha by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 then the petitioner cannot maintain his plea of adverse possession since it was a permissive possession hence it was neither hostile nor adverse. 2 and 3 to the petitioner Jagvidit. When the land has been given on Sajha by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 then the petitioner cannot maintain his plea of adverse possession since it was a permissive possession hence it was neither hostile nor adverse. He also states that when the cultivatory possession is based on permission to share the harvested crop no rights by prescription can be acquired and any such assertion has no factual or legal basis. 13. Upon considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the decisions cited the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation requires to be gone into to the find out the reasons for which he has disagreed with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation. 14. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the entry in the khatauni of 1359F where the name of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is recorded in Part II since three years prior thereto. He has noted that in the khatauni of 1371F to 1376F the name of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been recorded in Part II where it is noted that their names are coming from prior to 1363F. An order dated 31.10.1964 of the supervision kanumgo on Form P.A.10 for mutation of the name of Jagvidit Singh to be recorded in Column 9 is existing on the Khatauni of 1363F. In 1356F Khatauni the name of Raj Kishore and others is shown in Ziman 6 as Mohal Sarvajeet Singh. An order dated 31.10.1964 of the supervision kanumgo on Form P.A.10 for mutation of the name of Jagvidit Singh to be recorded in Column 9 is existing on the Khatauni of 1363F. In 1356F Khatauni the name of Raj Kishore and others is shown in Ziman 6 as Mohal Sarvajeet Singh. He has taken into account the entries in the Khasra of various Fasli’s and recorded as hereunder : Khasra-1356F - Raj Kishore - Jaduvir Singh (The Sikimi column is blank but the family of Ram Roop is shown in Column Kaifiyat (occupant) Khasra 1359F - Raj Kishore - Jaduvir (The Sikimi column records Ram Roop and Ram Harak) Khasra-1362F - Ram Roop (Sikimi) - Ram Harak (In remarks column the name of Jagvidit Singh is recorded as in possession) Khasra-1366F - Ram Roop - Ram Harak (The Sikimi column is blank but in remarks column possession of Jagvidit Singh is recorded) Khasra-1367F - Ram Roop - Ram Harak (In remarks column the possession of Jagvidit Singh is recorded) Khasra-1371F - Ram Roop - Ram Harak (Sikimi column and remarks column are blank) Khasra-1372F - Ram Roop - Ram Harak (Sikimi column is blank and in the remarks column the possession of Jagvidit Singh is recorded) ZA Form 110 - Jaduvir Singh - owner (This is the last entry for payment of compensation under the Act) 15. Taking the above revenue entries into account the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for first time came in the khasra 1359F as three years prior as Sajha on payment of Rs. 20/- yearly as rent. He held that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were entered as Sikimi immediately prior to the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act hence under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act they acquired rights as Sirdar on 30.10.1954 as also for the reasons that they were shown to be in possession in Khasra of 1359F. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the land owners Raj Kishore and others (ancestors of Jagvidit-petitioner) lost their title over the land in question. 16. Having recorded the finding that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acquired Sirdari rights w.e.f. 30.10.1954 the petitioner Jagvidit Singh’s case of adverse possession was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 16. Having recorded the finding that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have acquired Sirdari rights w.e.f. 30.10.1954 the petitioner Jagvidit Singh’s case of adverse possession was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He referred to the revenue entries and found that the petitioner Jagvidit had not brought any suit or action to evict Ram Roop and Ram Harak after the enforcement of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act upto the start of consolidation proceedings. In case the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were occupying the land without title and no suit is brought under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the consequences as provided under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act follow and the rights of the possessor of the land mature accordingly. He also held that since 1359F (and three years prior thereto) the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded over the land in the main column of the khasra (Not khatauni) and Jagvidit Singh was mentioned in the remarks column. He found that there was no reference of PA-10 nor the provisions of the Land Record Manual were complied with. As such the burden of proof of adverse possession was not successfully discharged by the petitioner Jagvidit Singh hence with the start of consolidation operations in 1379F he was not in adverse possession of the land for seven years and did not acquire Sirdari rights. 17. In the above back ground what has to be adjudicated in this writ petition is the status of the parties under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and then their claims and rights under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The issue would be : (1) Whether the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Ram Roop and Ram Harak became Adhivasi and Sirdar by virtue of the provision of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and then acquired Bhumidhari rights? (2) When the petitioner Jagvidit through his ancestors was recorded in the main column of the khatauni and the khasra on the date of vesting and recorded in possession thereafter in the basic year then whether he would be required to prove adverse possession against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Ram Roop and Ram Harak after the date of vesting? 18. Khatauni is the register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land in a village. 2 and 3, Ram Roop and Ram Harak after the date of vesting? 18. Khatauni is the register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land in a village. Part I of the khatauni contains the details of the khata, tenure holder with parentage and residence, year of commencement of tenure, khasra number of each plot in the khata, area, land revenue of rent payable by tenure holder, substance of any order effecting change with number and date of the order, designation of the authority passing it, attested by the Registrar or Supervisor Kanungo in case of undisputed succession. Part II of the khatauni contains details of land held by asami’s who occupied the land or held the land as non-occupancy tenants, sub-tenants of grove land, mortgagees, allottees from land holder of Sir or Khudkasht, Thekedar, lessee or admitted under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by a bhumidhar or Sirdar as lessee of the land comprised in his holding. 19. In the present case the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in Part II of the Khatauni of 1359F showing the entry to exist since past three years. Therefore, their status on the basis of such entry can be only as that described under Part II. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were therefore not tenure holders as described in Part I of the khatauni. There is no record available to show that they were recorded at any time prior to 1359F. Therefore it was a first time entry in 1359F under Part II obtained to show possession on the date of vesting under the Act. The source of this entry has not been disclosed by them hence whether it was an entry showing the correct state of affairs is itself doubtful. 20. On the other hand khasra unlike a khatauni is not a record of rights. Its entries are not connected with settlement. Form P.A.-10 relates to partal (survey) entries after each Kharif and Rabi crop. It is recorded by the Lekhpal and verification report of such entry is made by the Supervisor Kanungo. In the present case an entry was made of an order dated 31.10.1964 of the Supervisor Kanungo for mutation of the name of Jagvidit Singh in Column 9 of the khatauni 1371F to 1373F. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that such order was never communicated. In the present case an entry was made of an order dated 31.10.1964 of the Supervisor Kanungo for mutation of the name of Jagvidit Singh in Column 9 of the khatauni 1371F to 1373F. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that such order was never communicated. He has held that in proceedings for recording a name the requirements under the Land Record Manual have to be satisfied. 21. Form P.A.-10 requires the recording of changes. The entries to be made therein are : Column 1 - khasra number of plot. Column 2 - Area Column 3 - Details of entry in the last year Column 4 - Details of entry made in the current year Column 5 - Verification report by Supervisor Kanungo Column 6 - Remarks Paragraph 89-A of Chapter V (Map and Khasra) of the Land Record Manual is quoted hereunder : “89-A. List of changes.—After each kharif and rabi partal of a village the Lekhpal shall prepare in triplicate a consolidated List of new and modified entries in the khasra in the following form: (ii) The Lekhpal shall fill in first four Columns and hand over a copy of the list to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. He shall also prepare extract from the list and issue to the persons concerned recorded in Columns 3 and 4 to their heirs, if the person or persons concerned have died, obtaining their signature in the copy of the list retained by him. Another copy shall be sent to the Supervisor Kanungo. [(iii) The Supervisor Kanungo shall ensure at the time of his partal of the village the extract have been issued in all the cases and signatures obtained of the recipients”.] 22. Apart from the procedure prescribed under the above quoted paragraph 89-A the signatures of the recipients are also to be obtained. This provision therefore ensures that any change in the list which is to be entered in Form P.A.-10 must be within the knowledge and be issued to the person. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that there was no evidence on record as to how such change in the list was made. Hence the petitioner had to discharge his burden of proof and show that such change was informed to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that there was no evidence on record as to how such change in the list was made. Hence the petitioner had to discharge his burden of proof and show that such change was informed to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the absence of such evidence and proof the entry of order for mutation dated 31.10.1964 in Form P.A.-10 was not believed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 23. The above finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation relates to the khatauni of 1371F to 1373F. This finding has led him to decide the question whether the petitioner matured his rights by adverse possession against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Clearly the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were at the best recorded in Part II of the Khatauni of 1359F which shows land held by asami’s by permissive possession. When the possession was permissive then the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not say or claim that their possession was not on Sajha. In case their possession was at the first instance as a Sajhidar then they could not be recorded as tenants or sub-tenants or occupiers who did not have the consent of the tenure holder. 24. Under such circumstances the tenure holder does not require to prove any adverse possession nor the person in permissive possession can claim that his possession was hostile and adverse to the tenure holder. The khasra of 1356F and 1359F records the ancestors of the petitioner in the main column and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are shown in the remarks column as in occupation. The possession of the petitioner thereafter has been recorded in the remarks column of the khasra’s of 1362F, 1366F, 1367F, 1372F. The petitioner’s name is also entered in ZA Form 110 as owner which is the Form showing the entry of payment of compensation with the abolition of Zamindari. It is an entry of compensation payable to land holders under Section 240-E of the Act. The petitioner’s name is also entered in ZA Form 110 as owner which is the Form showing the entry of payment of compensation with the abolition of Zamindari. It is an entry of compensation payable to land holders under Section 240-E of the Act. The Section is quoted hereunder : “240-E. Compensation to the land-holder or an adhivasi—The amount payable as compensation to the land-holder under Section 240-C shall— (1) where such land-holder or his predecessor-in-interest was a bhumidhar referred to in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) 18, be— (a) an amount equal to ten times the rent referred to in Clause (b) of Section 240-D plus; (b) the compensation and the rehabilitation grant, if any, payable to him in accordance with the provisions of Chapters III to V; (2) where such land-holder was, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting a fixed rate tenant or a person referred to in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 240-D an amount equal to twenty times the rent referred to in Clause (b) of the said Section; (3) where such land-holder was, on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, a bhumidhar other than a bhumidhar referred to in Clauses (a) and (2) an amount equal to- (a) ten times the rent referred to in Clause (b) of Section 240-D; and (b) ten times the rent referred to in Clause (c) of the said Section; (4) where such land-holder or his predecessor-in-interest was, on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, a person referred to in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (b) of Section 240-D an amount equal to ten times the rent referred to in Clause (b) of Section 240-D. Provided always that where the amount to be paid under sub-clause (a) of Clause (3) or Clause (4) is less than the amount equal to five times the rent payable for such land by the tenant thereof on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting the amount to be paid shall be equal to five times the said rent”. 25. The Z.A. Form 110 coupled with the khatauni entry of 1356F and 1359F reveals that on the date of vesting under the Act it was the petitioner who through his ancestors was recorded in the Main Column. The Khasra of 1356F and 1359F also recorded the petitioners ancestors in the Main Column. The Respondent Nos. 25. The Z.A. Form 110 coupled with the khatauni entry of 1356F and 1359F reveals that on the date of vesting under the Act it was the petitioner who through his ancestors was recorded in the Main Column. The Khasra of 1356F and 1359F also recorded the petitioners ancestors in the Main Column. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were shown in occupation. They were in occupation as Sajha and Sajha could only be permissive. Therefore to hold that persons in occupation by permission of the land owner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 20 of the Act would be extending that benefit to a person who did not fall in any category envisaged in the statutory provision. Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act runs as under : “20. Therefore to hold that persons in occupation by permission of the land owner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 20 of the Act would be extending that benefit to a person who did not fall in any category envisaged in the statutory provision. Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act runs as under : “20. [Every person who- (a) on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting was or has been deemed to be in accordance with the provisions of this Act]- (i) except as provided in [sub-clause (i) of Clause (b)], a tenant of sir other than a tenant referred to in Clause (ix) of Section 19 or in whose favour hereditary rights accrue in accordance with the provisions of Section 10; or (ii) except as provided in [sub-clause (i) of Clause (b)], a sub-tenant other than a sub-tenant referred to in proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947), or in sub-section (4) of Section 47 of the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (U.P. Act XVII of 1939) of the land other than grove land, (b) was recorded as occupant, (i) of any land [other than grove land or land to which Section 16 applies or land referred to in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947] in the khasra or khatauni of 1356-F prepared under Section 28 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), or who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the United Provinces Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947 (U.P. Act X of 1947); or (ii) of any land to which Section 16 applies in the [Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli prepared under Section 28 and 33 respectively of] the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), but who was not in possession in the year 1356-F; shall, unless he has become a bhumidhar of the land under sub-section (2) of Section 18 or an asami under Clause (h) of Section 21, be called adhivasi of the land and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation I.—Where a person referred to in Clause (b) was evicted from the land after June 30, 1948, he shall notwithstanding anything in any order, be deemed to be a person entitled to regain possession of the land. Explanation II.—Where any entry in the records referred to in Clause (b) has been corrected before the date of vesting under or in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (U.P. Act III of 1901), the entry so corrected shall for the purposes of the said clause, prevail] Explanation III.—For the purposes of Explanation II an entry shall be deemed to have been corrected before the date of vesting if an order or decree of a competent Court requiring any correction in records had been made before the said date and had become final even though the correction may not have been incorporated in the record. Explanation IV.—For purposes of this Section ‘occupant’ as respects any land does not include a person who was entitled as an intermediary to the land or any share therein the year 1356 Fasli.].” 26. The meaning of the word ‘occupant’ would not include Sajhidars or licensees. Hence when the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in Part II of the khatauni of 1359 F showing the entry to exist from past three years i.e. since 1356F or 1357F they were at that time in permissive possession and the petitioner was recorded in Part I of the khatuani of 1356F showing his ancestors Raj Kishore and others in Ziman 6 as Mohal Sarvajeet Singh. These ancestors of the petitioner were also recorded in the Main Column of the Khasra of 1356F and 1359F. This was the situation on the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 27. Thereafter the possession of the petitioner has been continuously recorded in the Remarks column of the Khasra’s of 1362F, 1366F, 1367F, 1371F and 1372F. 28. The entry of 1379F in the khasra in the entry of the basic year under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This is an identical entry of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as it was existing since 1362F. The petitioner was again recorded in possession in the remarks column. Therefore there is a finding recorded that the Respondent Nos. The entry of 1379F in the khasra in the entry of the basic year under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This is an identical entry of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as it was existing since 1362F. The petitioner was again recorded in possession in the remarks column. Therefore there is a finding recorded that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in Part II of the khatauni which entry does not relate to a sub-tenant but it relates to Sajhidars or licensee and being recorded in the khasra was as a Sajhidar hence it was a permissive possession for all these years to cultivate the land and share the harvest half and half with the petitioner. Such possession does not entitle the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the benefit of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act since they do not come in the category of occupants defined in the Section. They did not become adhivasi or Sirdar nor could they acquire Bhumidhari rights. The conclusion of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is therefore not in accordance with law in view of the undisputed evidence on record. 29. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is the last Court of facts. In a writ petition this Court will not reappraise the evidence to substitute its own findings. But when the evidence is ignored and a conclusion is arrived at to give benefit of a provision of law then the conclusion would be against the evidence. Such an illegal conclusion can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has concluded that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were recorded in the Revenue Records for several years which indicate their possession and the petitioner did not bring any action or suit for their eviction hence the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had matured their rights under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. This conclusion could be only on two grounds. Firstly in view of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and secondly by adverse possession. The first circumstances has already been dealt with herein above. The second ground would be the rights by adverse possession. For claiming adverse possession it has to be established that there was no iota of title in existence and the possession was hostile to the knowledge of the owner. The first circumstances has already been dealt with herein above. The second ground would be the rights by adverse possession. For claiming adverse possession it has to be established that there was no iota of title in existence and the possession was hostile to the knowledge of the owner. If that be the circumstance then the petitioner would be required to bring an action or suit. If he did not do so for more than 12 years then the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be entitled to maintain such a plea. In the present case the evidence is otherwise. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 entered the land on Sajha with permission of the petitioner in 1359F. Therefore their continued possession on 1379F was not an adverse possession. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not claim rights by adverse possession. The petitioner on the other hand was owner since the time of his ancestors. He had a valid source of title over the land hence in law the issue of the owner proving adverse possession was not at all required. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in law in recording that the petitioner was required to prove his adverse possession against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who in turn could not establish any source of title. Their name came in the revenue record for the first time in 1359F in the remarks column which is Part II of the khatauni and that entry indicates only permissive possession. 30. ZA Form 110 which was on record was proof of payment of compensation to the petitioners upon abolition of Zamindari. It is only the land holder who is paid that compensation as provided in Section 240-E of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Therefore, also the petitioner and his ancestors were the land-holders at that time and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been able to show the source from where their name came in the khasra for the first time in 1359F. The plea of the petitioner that the land was given to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for cultivation on Sajha was rightly believed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 31. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a totally alien case by holding that the Respondent Nos. The plea of the petitioner that the land was given to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for cultivation on Sajha was rightly believed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 31. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has carved out a totally alien case by holding that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the land holder hence he has misled himself in shifting the burden of proof on the petitioner to prove adverse possession against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Cearly such burden was not required to be discharged by the petitioner. The possession of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was permissive hence they were not occupant of the land in dispute and could not be given the benefit of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 32. For the aforementioned reasons this writ petition requires to be allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.1975 passed in Revision No. 1254 (Ram Roop and another v. Jagvidit and others) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varansi is set aside. The orders of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer are affirmed. The Consolidation Officer has directed as quoted hereunder : vkns’k ÞxkVk la[;k 320 jdok&30 jke:i o jkegj[k lu vkQ nsok dk uke [kkfjt gks rFkk txfofnr iq= cyohj dk uke crkSj lhjnkj ntZ gksA odk;k yxku 1366 Q0 ls olwy gksA foHkwfr ujk;u vkifr [kkfjt gksA fefly okn veynjken nkf[ky nQrj gksAÞ g0 pdcUnh vf/kdkjh fnukad 8&12&1973 33. The above directions are required to be complied with forthwith. The possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute is in accordance with law. In case he has been illegally dispossessed he has to be put back in possession immediately without any further delay. The writ petition is allowed. No order is passed as to costs. ——————