JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.2.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 48/76 (Badri v. Neur and others) whereby the revision filed by the respondent Badri has been allowed and it has been ordered that the name of Badri be recorded as Sirdar over the plots in dispute. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner No. 1 Neur and petitioner No. 2 Laley died and the heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record. The respondent No. 4 Badri also died and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. The petitioner’s claim to be Sirdars of plot Nos. 223/40, 224/40, 261/25, 267/34, 273/48, 295/63, 300/32, 301/35 situated in village Ramnagar, Tappa Katehra, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Gorakhpur. According to them the name of respondent No. 4 Badri was recorded in the revenue record in the basic year. The petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming that the land in question is ancestral property of the petitioner. As such the name of Badri (respondent No. 4) was wrongly recorded in the revenue papers. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 19.5.1975 rejected the objection filed by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer had framed the issue as to whether the petitioner Neur and others have any interest over the land in question. 4. While considering the issue the Consolidation Officer took into account statement of Sitaram, Baran and Ram Dulare who stated that the petitioner was in possession over the plot in dispute. The Consolidation Officer considered the extract of Khatauni from 1360 Fasli to 1372 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer decided the issue against the petitioner and held that the name of Badri in the revenue record is coming from 1360 Fasli when the zamindar had settled the land in dispute. He found that under the provisions of U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act 1952 (U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952) records could be corrected on the basis of cultivatory possession of the land as on 1359 Fasli and therefore the entry made in the agreement register in pursuance of an order passed under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 would be deemed to be correct unless the party challenging it proves it to be wrong. The Consolidation Officer found that Badri was in possession since long and his name was entered in the revenue record correctly but since no objection/suit had been filed for more than 12 years by the petitioner the possession of Badri cannot be held to be wrong and his name in the basic year would entitle him to Sirdari rights. 5. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed Appeal No. 399 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who has allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the name of Badri (respondent No. 4) to be expunged from the records. The Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded that from 1353 Fasli to 1359 Fasli the land in question was recorded in the name of Dulam in column 6. In 1360 Fasli Dulam father of the petitioners is entered as Sirdar but in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli there is a mutation entry indicating that under order of Supervisor Kanungo the name of Dulam has been expunged from the agreement register and Badri has been recorded as Sirdar. The Settlement Officer Consolidation while considering the mutation entry in the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli held that no such register has been produced before him nor the order of the Supervisor Kanungo has been produced. He held that the Supervisor Kanungo had no right to expunge the name of Dulam the father of the petitioner from the Khatauni of 1360 Fasli. He has disagreed with the finding of the Consolidation Officer and held that when entry is made in the agreement register then the zamindar is always a party because it is only the zamindar who can settle the land in favour of any person. He further held that if the entry in the agreement register is believed then it will amount to a Sirdar conferring Sirdari rights on another person which is not permissible in law. He further held that when there is no evidence on record to indicate that prior to abolition of zamindari although Dulam was recorded then the zamindar could not settle the land with Badri since Sirdari rights are acquired and not conferred. He further held that when there is no evidence on record to indicate that prior to abolition of zamindari although Dulam was recorded then the zamindar could not settle the land with Badri since Sirdari rights are acquired and not conferred. For the aforesaid reasons he found that the name of Badri was wrongly entered in the revenue record and he has not obtained any Sirdari rights hence such incorrect entry cannot be maintained even if it is existing for a long time after the date of vesting and hence he set aside the entry in favour of Badri. The Settlement Officer Consolidation held that Badri was in illegal possession. He allowed the appeal of the petitioner and directed the name of Badri to be expunged and that of the petitioner who is son of Dulam be recorded as Sirdar. 6. The respondent No. 4 filed a Revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded that Dulam has been shown as tenant in Column 6 of the Khatauni 1359 Fasli and thereafter in 1360 Fasli he was recorded as Sirdar which is after abolition of zamindari and the order of mutation in favour of Badri was passed by the Supervisor Kanungo. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that there was no authority with the Supervisor Kanungo to pass an order for changing the entries nor there is any evidence as to how Badri’s name came to be recorded as Sirdar and hence he agreed with the decision given on this point by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation then considered that Badri matured his right as Sirdar on the basis of adverse possession. He has recorded a finding that Badri is recorded in the Khasra for more than 12 years which shows that he has been in possession of the plots in dispute and the petitioners have failed to prove that they were in possession over the land at any point of time which fact is also clear from the Khasra where the petitioners name does not find place for more than 12 years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the irrigation slips and land revenue receipts filed by Badri and found them to be good piece of evidence on the point of possession and since Badri had filed such land revenue receipts and irrigation slips his possession has been proved. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the irrigation slips and land revenue receipts filed by Badri and found them to be good piece of evidence on the point of possession and since Badri had filed such land revenue receipts and irrigation slips his possession has been proved. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the argument of the petitioners that the possession of Badri was not adverse to the petitioners since Badri had illegally obtained his entry after Dulam and therefore possession obtained illegally could not be adverse. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did not agree with the aforesaid submission and found that the possession of Badri was not permissive but it was adverse for more than 7 years up to the basic year and hence Badri has obtained Sirdari rights. 8. From the above finding recorded by the Consolidation authorities and in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the claim of the petitioners over the plots in dispute is on the basis that they have inherited the land from their ancestors. The record indicates that in the basic year Badri was recorded and prior there to the father of the petitioners namely Dulam was recorded from 1353 to 1359 Fasli in Column 6. The entry of Badri (respondent No. 4) has come by virtue of some order passed by the Supervisor Kanungo under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has recorded that no such order of the Supervisor Kanungo has been produced before him nor the agreement register has been produced before him and hence he held that the name of Badri was wrongly recorded in the revenue record and the property being ancestral of the petitioners they were to be recorded. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has agreed with such finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation but he has proceeded to allow the revision of Badri (respondent No. 4) on the basis that after 1360 Fasli Badri was in possession of the land in question for more than 12 years and such possession was reflected from the Khasra where the petitioners name was not recorded. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 (SC) 1254 . 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 (SC) 1254 . He states that in the aforesaid case the plea was that Syed Aulad Ali has purchased the property in the name of his son-in-law Hakir Ali benami but Syed Aulad Ali continued in possession of the property but did not assert that his possession was hostile against his son-in-law Hakir Ali and therefore when adverse possession was not hostile then Syed Aulad Ali did not acquire an absolute title by adverse possession. 10. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sonawati and others v. Sri Ram and another, 1968 RD 51, to state that when there is entry in the revenue record in the remarks column then such entry in the Khasra in the remarks column cannot entitle the person to claim that he has established his rights as an Adivasi and that person claiming an entry to be evidence and having being made under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 then a person who claims status of an Asami or Adivasi must establish that he was in cultivatory possession of the land during 1359 Fasli and such possession must be lawful and must be a lawful right vested in him to be in possession. 11. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and others, 2012 (115) RD 349, to state that the Supreme Court held that when a person is in possession for more than 12 years illegally then such illegal possession cannot be converted into a legal title. 12. He has place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ghasitey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda Camp Bahraich and others, 2012 (115) RD 54 and submits that an entry in Column 9 of the form if it is made not in accordance with law then bhumidhari rights cannot be claimed on the basis of such unlawful entry. 13. 13. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Bharit and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 1972 RD 451, to submit that under the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 even if the document of sale is invalid and he gets no title under it his possession will not be referable to any legal title but if he has been in possession for more than 2 years it would be adverse to the transferor and hence would not be permissive possession. 14. While referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Dwarika v. Desh Raj Singh, 1980 All CJ 60 and states that when a person enters into a possession in lieu of ancestor and for an amount advanced to him then even if the transaction was illegal the possession would be adverse. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalika Prasad and others v. Chhatrapal Singh (Dead) By LRS, 1997 All CJ 584 and submits that when the party came in possession as a power of attorney which was later on cancelled but no attempt was made to eject him his possession remained uninterrupted possession for over 12 years thus he perfected his title by prescription. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Jannat and others v. VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra and others, 2007 (102) RD 167 and submits that after a sale has been confirmed and sale certificate has been executed and an application for possession could be made within one year but when the application for possession was made after expiry of the period of limitation it would be barred by time. 17. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sukhdei and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 All CJ 1518 and submits that when the view taken by the Court below is reasonable the High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact merely on the ground that another view is also plausible. 18. 18. From the aforesaid decisions it appears that the question whether Badri was in adverse possession for more than 12 years after 1360 Fasli is the main question to be decided since on the other issues the Deputy Director of Consolidation has agreed with the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 19. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order has recorded that the Khasra entry for more than 12 years shows that Badri was in possession of the plot in dispute hence his possession was adverse to the petitioners. The facts of this case indicate that initially Dulam the father of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue records and the petitioners claim the property to be ancestral. There is no issue raised in the present proceedings that any transfer of title had taken place during the life time of Dulam or even thereafter. The name of Badri (respondent No. 4) came in Column 6 of the Khatauni 1360 Fasli for the first time when the name of Dulam was directed to be expunged by an order of the Supervisor Kanungo. Under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 it has been provided that records could be corrected on the basis of cultivatory possession of land as on 1359 Fasli and once such records are corrected by the Supervisor Kanungo such entry in the agreement register is deemed to be correct unless the party challenging it proves it to be wrong. Such provisions under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 requires the party challenging and entry made in the register to prove it to be wrong. 20. In the present case while applying the provisions of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 to the entry of Badri in 1360 Fasli it is not clear that his name came by an order of the Supervisor Kanungo who expunged the name of Dulam the father of the petitioners. Such order of Supervisor Kanungo was never produced. No reason has been brought forward in these proceedings to show that upon expunging the name of Dulam his sons i.e. the petitioners were not required to be recorded. Badri claimed to be in cultivatory possession. The possession of Badri during the life time of Dulam is not a reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to record that he has obtained Sirdari rights on the date of vesting. Badri claimed to be in cultivatory possession. The possession of Badri during the life time of Dulam is not a reason given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to record that he has obtained Sirdari rights on the date of vesting. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded that after the date of vesting Badri continued to be in possession which was hostile to the petitioners. 21. In case Badri was in possession illegally without any legal right and admittedly not being a co-sharer then such possession could not be adverse to the petitioners who claim to be owners since the legal right over the land in question was devolving upon the petitioners from their father Dulam. In the event Badri’s possession was illegal without any right or title then it was not hostile to the petitioners hence he could not develop rights by adverse possession. Clearly in the present case Badri was recorded in possession of the land in question in 1360 Fasli for the first time and never before. This entry came after the date of vesting. How it came has not been proved by producing any evidence. The only plea is that the name was mutated in proceeding under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952. The adverse possession claimed by Badri is for the reason that he was recorded in the Khasra for 12 years has to be seen on the basis that Dulam’s name was recorded in the Khatauni 1353 Fasli to 1359 Fasli in Column 6. 22. Insofar as the entry made by the Supervisor Kanungo under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 is concerned the person who has obtain an entry in the Khasra in the remarks column can claim Adivasi rights or status of Asami only if he can establish that he was in lawful possession and a lawful right vested in him. In the present case there is no such evidence. The possession of Badri was recorded from 1360 Fasli. He had no lawful right vested in him prior there to. Hence he could not claim Adivasi rights or status as Asami only on the basis of a suspicious entry recorded in the Khasra by the Supervisor Kanungo under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952. The possession of Badri was recorded from 1360 Fasli. He had no lawful right vested in him prior there to. Hence he could not claim Adivasi rights or status as Asami only on the basis of a suspicious entry recorded in the Khasra by the Supervisor Kanungo under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952. Even this entry was not proved to have been validly made and no evidence or any order of the Supervisor Kanungo was brought on record. The entry had no legal backing it was a managed entry which did not reflect the correct position. 23. In the case of Bharit (supra) a transaction of sale had taken place and the party came in possession and continued in possession for more than 2 years. It was held that even if the sale was invalid and the possession was not referable to the sale-deed then the possession would be adverse. In the present case there is no circumstance of any sale or transfer so as to make the claim of possession by Badri adverse to the transferor. There is also no averment that the possession of Badri was in lieu of an amount advanced by him. Therefore no benefit can be derived by him from the decision in the case of Dwarika (supra). 24. In the case of Kalika Prasad (supra) possession was taken by the attorney under a power of attorney. The power of attorney was subsequently cancelled but even then for more than 12 years no efforts were made to eject him. It was held that the attorney remained in uninterrupted possession for over 12 years after cancellation of power of attorney hence he perfected his title by prescription. In the present case no such circumstance exists. 25. The decision in the case of Smt. Jannat (supra) also is quite distinguishable. It related to a sale and its confirmation and even then possession was not taken for one year as prescribed under the Limitation Act. The application for possession after expiry of the period of limitation was clearly barred by time. In the present case the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act since in the basic year the name of Badri was recorded on the basis of an entry existing since 1360 Fasli. The application for possession after expiry of the period of limitation was clearly barred by time. In the present case the petitioners filed objection under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act since in the basic year the name of Badri was recorded on the basis of an entry existing since 1360 Fasli. Therefore when the title was to be decided under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the objection was maintainable. There was no bar of limitation when the consolidation operations were notified in the village. 26. This is not a case where two views are possible. Therefore the submission that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may not interfere in the impugned order because two views are possible is quite a misplaced submission. 27. In the present case Badri had no interest in the land in question prior to 1360 Fasli. In 1360 Fasli the name of Dulam the father of the petitioners was recorded in the revenue record. Badri got his name mutated on the strength of some order passed by the Supervisor Kanungo. Such order is not available on record. It was never produced. Hence the very basis of the entry does not exist. Under such circumstances the entry of Badri’s name in the revenue record was a forged entry without any order in accordance with law. Therefore his claim to be in possession was to be an unauthorised claim having no legal backing. When he came into possession unauthorisedly he was not in possession under any agreement or right. In the case of Bharit (supra), Kalika Prasad (supra) and Smt. Jannat (supra) they all obtained possession by virtue of a transaction and then continued in possession even though the transaction did not materialize or fruitify. Hence their possession became hostile and they got the benefit of being in adverse possession. Badri on the other hand never came in possession by virtue of any transaction or settlement. He claimed possession on the basis of a forged entry in the revenue record. The decision in the case of Smt. Sonawati has clearly held that even an entry recorded under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 has to be lawful and there must be a legal right vested in the person to be in possession. He claimed possession on the basis of a forged entry in the revenue record. The decision in the case of Smt. Sonawati has clearly held that even an entry recorded under U.P. Act No. 31 of 1952 has to be lawful and there must be a legal right vested in the person to be in possession. In Mukesh Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court held that when a person is in illegal possession such illegal possession cannot be converted into a legal title. In Ghasitey (supra) it was held that an unlawful entry cannot give bhumidhari rights. 28. Therefore when Badri’s possession was based on an illegal entry in the revenue records and even the basis of that entry was not brought out or proved then it was a forged entry. His possession thereafter was illegal hence he could not mature rights by adverse possession. He never came in possession of the land under any transaction or agreement with anybody hence there was no question of his possession being hostile to the true owner. 29. Clearly Badri was not entitled to claim Sirdari rights on the basis of his claim of adverse possession. The possession of Badri was not hostile. It is therefore held that Badri could not claim Sirdari rights on the basis of his claim of being in adverse possession. 30. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 10.2.1977 passed in Revision No. 48/76 (Badri v. Neur and others) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur is set aside to the extent where he has directed Badri’s name to be recorded in the revenue records. The findings on adverse possession in favour of Badri (respondent No. 4) are set aside. 31. The writ petition is allowed. 32. No order is passed as to costs. ———————