Ram Surat Ram ( Maurya), J. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar for the petitioner. List has been revised but no one appears for respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia ( respondent-1) dated 27.8.1999, passed in Revision Nos. 1627 and 1628, Uma v. Patia and others, and order of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia ( respondent-2) dated 22.4.1997, passed in Appeal No. 406, Ganesh v. Patia and Appeal No. 407, Patia v. Ganesh, in the title proceedings under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute relates to plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre) situated at village Sahulai, pargana Sikandarpur Purbi, district Ballia. In basic consolidation year, khata 701 ( consisting of plot Nos. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre), 1962 ( area 0.30 acre), 1963 ( area 0.18 acre), 1964/1 ( area 0.20 acre), 1965/1 ( area 0.21 acre), 1971 ( area 0.36 acre), 1972 ( area 0.34 acre) and 1973 ( area 0.35 acre) ( total area 2.54 acre) was recorded in the names of Patia ( respondent-4) and Jankia ( respondent-5) ( hereinafter referred to as the respondents). Ganesh ( the father of the petitioner) filed an objection ( registered as Case No. 370 of 1984) under Section 9A of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the khata in dispute. However, in his oral statement. Ganesh confined his claim in respect of entire area of 0.59 acre of plot No. 1961 and abandoned his claim of cotenancy in respect of entire plots of khata 701. Ganesh, in his statement gave a pedigree, in which he had stated that one Bhuwal was the common ancestor of the parties who had four sons namely Feku, Harhangi, Naurangi and Shiv Saran. Harhangi and Shiv Saran died issueless. Ganesh was son of Naurangi and Patia widow of Bhukhan was grand daughter-in-law of Feku and Jankia is the daughter of Bhukhan. Plot No. 1961 was the self acquired property of Naurangi and Shiv Saran. Feku died during life time of his other brothers. The respondents have no right over plot 1961. On behalf of the respondents, Patia was examined and she in her statement has stated that the land in dispute was the self acquired property of her husband Bhukhan and his brothers Amar and Ganesh have no right over it. Feku died during life time of his other brothers. The respondents have no right over plot 1961. On behalf of the respondents, Patia was examined and she in her statement has stated that the land in dispute was the self acquired property of her husband Bhukhan and his brothers Amar and Ganesh have no right over it. 4. The case was tried by the Consolidation Officer II, Antim Abhilekh, Ballia, who by his judgment dated 29.4.1986 held that name of Ganesh was recorded over plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre) in khatauni of 1345F, alongwith the names of Bhukhan and Amar, sons of Sukhdeo and Shiv Saran son of Bhuwal as such Ganesh was co-sharer of 1/2 share in plot No. 1961 alongwith the respondents. Ganesh filed an appeal ( registered as Appeal No. 406, Ganesh v. Patia) and Patia and Jankia filed another appeal ( registered as Appeal No. 407, Patia v. Ganesh) from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ballia ( respondent 2), who by his order dated 22.4.1997 held that although in khatauni of 1345 of, name of Ganesh was recorded alongwith the name of the husband of Patia over the land in dispute as 'non-occupancy tenant' but in subsequent year, the land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of the husband of Patia as such neither title nor possession of Ganesh was proved. On these findings appeal of Patia was allowed and appeal of Ganesh was dismissed by order dated 22.4.1997. 5. The petitioners filed two revisions ( registered as Revision Nos. 1627 and 1628, Uma v. Patia and others), from the orders. The revisions were heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia ( respondent-1), who by his order dated 27.8.1999, held that the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to show that after 1345F he was ever in possession over the land in dispute as such his title and possession over the land in dispute was not proved. On these findings the revisions were dismissed. These orders are challenged in this writ petition. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ganesh was recorded jointly alongwith Bhukhan and Amar, sons of Sukhdeo and Shiv Saran son of Bhuwal, in 1345F khatauni as 'non-occupancy tenant' over the land in dispute. On these findings the revisions were dismissed. These orders are challenged in this writ petition. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ganesh was recorded jointly alongwith Bhukhan and Amar, sons of Sukhdeo and Shiv Saran son of Bhuwal, in 1345F khatauni as 'non-occupancy tenant' over the land in dispute. Thereafter, Ganesh was recorded as occupant in 1356F khatauni over plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre). Being a 'recorded occupant' in 1356-F khatauni, Ganesh became 'adhivasi' of the land in dispute under Section 20 ( b) and bhumidhar with non-transferable right' under Section 240B of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. He submitted that the word 'occupant' occurring under Section 20 ( b) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 as has been defined by the Supreme Court in Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, 1964 RD 303 ( SC), means that the person in actual possession. In which it is held that between the proprietor and a tenant, the tenant and between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the latter and between him and a person recorded in the remarks column as 'dawedar qabiz, the 'dawedar qabiz' are the occupants. He submitted that as Ganesh was recorded in the remark column in 1356F khasra as such he was the 'recorded occupant' and after date of vesting, has become sirdar. The orders of the consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the parties and examined the record. There are two documents, in which name of Ganesh was recorded, namely 1345F khatauni wherein names of Ganesh son of Naurangi, Bhukhan and Amar sons of Sukhdeo and Shiv Saran son of Bhuwal were recorded as 'non-occupancy tenant' over the land in dispute alongwith other plots and the other document is 1356F khasra in which name of Patia was recorded in the column of tenant and Ganesh was recorded in the remark column over plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre). Ganesh abandoned his claim of cotenancy based on 1345F khatauni and claimed exclusive right over one plot, namely, plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre) in his oral statement before the Consolidation Officer. Ganesh abandoned his claim of cotenancy based on 1345F khatauni and claimed exclusive right over one plot, namely, plot No. 1961 ( area 0.59 acre) in his oral statement before the Consolidation Officer. Two documents are contradictory to each other as if Ganesh was a joint tenant then he could not claim his exclusive possession as such in between two contradictory stands he had preferred one stand of exclusive possession. Therefore, no reliance can be placed over the khatauni of 1345F in his favour. 8. Now the question arises as to whether Ganesh has become 'adhivasi' on the basis of khasra of 1356F under Section 20 ( b) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant portion of Section 20 is quoted below : "Section 20.Every person who ( a) ..... ( 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 sub­section ( 3) of Section 27 of U. P. Tenancy ( Amendment) Act, 1947] in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 ( U. P. Act III of 1901) or who was on the date immediately proceeding 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 No. X of 1947). or ( ii) ……… shall unless he has become a bhumidhar of the land under sub­section ( 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." Thus, in order to claim 'adhivasi' right under Section 20 ( b) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the person must be a recorded occupant in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F prepared under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 9. The case of the petitioner is that Ganesh was recorded occupant in khasra 1356F. 9. The case of the petitioner is that Ganesh was recorded occupant in khasra 1356F. Section 28 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 ( before its amendment in 1951) provides that the Collector shall maintain the khasra in accordance with Rules framed under Section 234 of the Act, 1901. Section 33 requires the Collector to maintain the record of right and for that purpose to prepare annually an amended set of registers enumerated under Section 32. Clause ( c) of Section 32 refers to " a register of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specifying the particulars required by Section 55". The khasra and khatauni have to be prepared in accordance with the Rules framed under Section 234 of the Act, 1901. In exercise of powers undermSection 234 of the Act, 1901, the Rules have been framed and known as Land Records Manual. Chapter V, Paragraphs 55 to 102 deals with preparation of khasra. Paragraph-60 provides that khasra shall be prepared in Form P3. Form P3 consist 21 columns. Column 5 is meant for the name of cultivator. Column 6 is for sub-tenant, tenant of sir, tenants of permanent tenure holders, or rent free grantee or grantee at a favourable rate of rent or occupier of land without the consent of the person entitled to admit as sub-tenant. Column-21 is the remark column. 10. Paragraph 84 requires that ii" the patwari finds that a person whose name has been previously recorded in cultivatory possession and some one else is recorded in column-5, he will follow the procedure given under Paragraphs 79, to 83. Under these paragraphs, if the patwari finds that such, an occupier is either heir or sub-tenant of the person recorded in column 5, he shall substitute name of such occupier in red ink as "dawedar qabiz". Paragraph 87 provides entry of the sub-tenant. Thus, where no one is entered in column-6, a person claiming to be in cultivatory possession without the consent of the person whose name is entered in column 5 has to be entered in column-6 in red ink, specifying his status. Remark column entry is a provisional entry and is made only during pending inquiry by the patwari. If after inquiry, the patwari finds possession of the persons then his name has to be entered in column-5 or column 6 in red ink as "dawedar qabiz". Remark column entry is a provisional entry and is made only during pending inquiry by the patwari. If after inquiry, the patwari finds possession of the persons then his name has to be entered in column-5 or column 6 in red ink as "dawedar qabiz". It is such an entry which confers right of 'adhivasi' under Section 20 ( b) of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The provisional entry in the remark column cannot be treated as an entry of 'recorded occupant'. 11. The controversy in this respect has been examined by a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Basdeo v. Board of Revenue and others, 1974 All LJ 706, in which this Court has held that an entry notmmade in accordance with the prescribed rules cannot be deemed to be an entry of recorded occupant. This controversy has been examined in various cases by the Supreme Court. In Bachan v. Kankar, ( 1972) 2 SCC 555 , the Supreme Court has held as follows : "Section 20 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 speaks of a person recorded as occupant to become adhivasi of the land and will be entitled to take or retain possession as mentioned in the section. One of the principal matters mentioned in the section is that the khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli is to be prepared under Sections 28 and 33 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The U. P. Land Records Manual in Chapter A-V in Paras A-55 to A-67 lays down the manner in which the khasra or the field book showing possession is to be prepared by the patwari in the areas to which Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies. There are detailed instructions about the manner in which the enquiry should be carried out about actual possession and change in possession and corrections in the map and field book, the form in which the khasra is to be prepared. The form of khasra is given in para A-80. The form shows that the Lekhpal has to prepare a consolidated list of entries after partial or proper investigation. Again, paras A-70 to A-73 to the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act show how entries have to be made in khataunis every year showing the nature of tenure of each holder. The form shows that the Lekhpal has to prepare a consolidated list of entries after partial or proper investigation. Again, paras A-70 to A-73 to the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act show how entries have to be made in khataunis every year showing the nature of tenure of each holder. The khatauni is meant to be a record of tenure-holders. The manner of changes to be made there is laid down in paras A-82 to A-83. Entries are to be checked. Extract has to be sent to the Chairman, Land Management Committee as contemplated in paragraph A-82 ( iii). In this context Section 20 ( b) ( i) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which speaks of the record "as occupant" in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli refers to the khasra or khatauni being prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1901. Khasra is the field book provided for by Section 28 of . the Land Revenue Act. Khatauni is an annual register prepared under Section 32 of the Land Revenue Act, 1951. It has to be emphasised that the entry under Section 20 ( b) ( i) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in order to enable a person to obtain adhivasi rights must be an entry under the provisions of law. The Supreme Court further has held that entries which are not genuine cannot confirm adhivasi rights. The High Court wrongly held that though the entry was incorrect it could not be said to be fictitious. It is too obvious to be stressed that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis." 12. In Ram Ram Harakh v. Hamid Ahmed Khan, ( 1998) 7 SCC 484 , the Supreme Court has held as follows "It is not in dispute between the parties that in khasra or khatauni of 1356 fasli the appellants' names were mentioned. However, the moot question is whether this entry was effected under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 after following the due procedure. There is nothing on the record of these appeals to show whether this entry was effected after following the said procedure. However, the moot question is whether this entry was effected under Sections 28 and 33 respectively of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 after following the due procedure. There is nothing on the record of these appeals to show whether this entry was effected after following the said procedure. It is to be kept in view that this entry saw the light of day in favour of the appellants during the time when there were already litigations pending between the parties before the competent civil courts at the instance of the respondents who were already having an earlier entry of personal cultivation in their favour being Entry 1354 fasli. It was their contention that they were actually in possession and the defendants, namely, the appellants had no interest in the lands and they were trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession during the pendency of the proceedings concerning the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the very same properties, namely, the suit plots." 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is found that entry of the name of Ganesh in remark column of khasra 1356F was a provisional entry and cannot be regarded as an entry of 'recorded occupant' so as to confer 'adhivasi' right under Section 20 ( b) of the Act. Apart from this document, there is no evidence regarding possession of Ganesh over the land in dispute. Thus, no illegality has been committed by respondents 1 and 2 in dismissing the objection of Ganesh. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.