JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is directed against the order dated 14.11.1972 passed in Case No. 5526 (Ram Murat v. Ram Briksha) by the Consolidation Officer the order dated 4.3.1974 passed in Appeal No. 233 (Ram Briksha v. Ram Murat) by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation as also against the revisional order dated 20.3.1976 passed in Revision No. 3155 (Ram Briksha v. Ram Murat) by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. 2. During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner Ram Briksha died and he was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives and Respondent No. 4, Ram Murat also died and he was also substituted by his heirs and legal representatives. 3. The dispute in this writ petition relates to Plot No. 663, area 6 Vishwa and 10 Dhoor situated in Village Bhaskarpur, Pargana Kera Mangraur, Tehsil Chakiya, District Varanasi. 4. The Consolidation Officer considered the case of Ram Murat (Respondent No. 4) who had objected during survey upon which report was submitted and the Consolidation Officer registered it as an objection under Section 9A(2) of the Act to the effect that his name was entered in the basic year in Column-I and he had matured sirdari rights. The petitioner, Ram Briksha disputed the claim of Ram Murat whereupon the Consolidation Officer framed an issue for decision. The issue was “whether Ram Murat is sirdar in possession of Gata No. 663 area 6 Vishwa 10 Dhoor”. On the said issue the parties led their documentary and oral evidence. 5. The Consolidation Officer considered the oral evidence of Ram Murat who stated that he has been in recorded possession since the time of his ancestors who had effected a partition. Ram Briksha also gave his oral statement that he is in possession of the land in question and Ram Murat belongs to his extended family. 6. Ram Murat filed documentary evidence in the form of khatauni of 1344F, 1347F, 1350F, 1354F, 1365F and 1366F. He also filed khasra of 1347F, 1356F, 1357F, 1359F and irrigation slips of 1360F, 1361F, 1362F and 1363F. On behalf of Ram Briksha khasra of 1366F and 1369F to 1374F as also six irrigation slips were filed. 7. The Consolidation Officer has recorded that new number of Gata No. 663 is 670/1 and 670/2. He also filed khasra of 1347F, 1356F, 1357F, 1359F and irrigation slips of 1360F, 1361F, 1362F and 1363F. On behalf of Ram Briksha khasra of 1366F and 1369F to 1374F as also six irrigation slips were filed. 7. The Consolidation Officer has recorded that new number of Gata No. 663 is 670/1 and 670/2. From the khatauni of 1334F it is apparent that on the said two plots the name of Kedar, father of Ram Murat has been recorded as in possession. In the khatauni of 1341F, Ram Murat has been shown in possession. The possession of Ram Murat is also shown in khatauni of 1347F and 1354F as also in khasra from 1356F to 1368F. On the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence the Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that Ram Murat has been in possession over the land in question from time of his father (1334F) hence when he was occupant of the land in question on the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was recorded in the revenue record hence being an Adhiwasi he had matured his rights as a sirdar since the irrigation slips produced for the period from 1365F to 1374F indicates his possession. The Consolidation Officer on the above evidence recorded that any rights claimed by Ram Briksha stood extinguished prior to 1356F and there was no evidence filed by Ram Briksha regarding his continuous possession over the land in question. The Consolidation Officer on the basis of possession and in view of Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act declared Ram Murat as the occupant and subsequently as sirdar and directed his name to be entered as such. He held that Ram Briksh (Respondent No. 4) was not the recorded occupant of the land in question. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Ram Briksha preferred an Appeal No. 5526 before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur Camp, Varanasi. The appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the Consolidation Officer by recording that the evidence in the form of khasra and khatauni indicated that Ram Murat was recorded and was in possession of the land in question and the entry in 1341F and 1347F of Ram Briksha clearly indicated that he is not in possession and Ram Murat is in possession. He took into account the khatauni and khasra of 1350F, 1354F, 1356F, 1357F and 1359F which indicated that Ram Murat is recorded and has been shown in possession of the plot in question. The appellate Court held that Ram Murat had also filed irrigation slips for the period 1352F to 1378F which indicated that Ram Murat was cultivating the land. 9. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation took into account the irrigation slips filed by Ram Briksha for the years 1364F, 1366F to 1369F and held that Ram Briksha tried to prove that in these years he was in possession, however, he recorded that although Ram Murat had not filed any written objection under Section 9 of the Act but these proceedings started on the report made by the Chakbandikarta at the time of survey where Ram Murat had made an oral objection hence the issue was referred for decision by the Consolidation Officer as to whether Ram Murat is sirdar of the land in question. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has found that there is no evidence led by Ram Murat to prove partition amongst the family and, therefore, the question as to whether Ram Murat had obtained status of Adhiwasi from 1.7.1953 under Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was considered. He held that Ram Briksha was for the first time recorded in 1357F whereas Ram Murat and his father have continued to be recorded in possession from 1334F onwards and hence the possession claimed by Ram Briksha on the basis of his first time entry in the revenue record of 1357F can be proved if he can show that his name was entered in the khasra of 1357F in accordance with the procedure prescribed for recording of name in the revenue record. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation has held that Ram Briksha has failed to bring any evidence on record to prove that his name was recorded in khasra of 1357F in accordance with the procedure prescribed and hence he has concluded that on the basis of entries in revenue records and also possession Ram Murat was the recorded occupant hence he became an Adhiwasi under Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and matured sirdari rights by virtue of continuous possession. He held that Ram Murat has matured his sirdari rights and hence has dismissed the appeal of Ram Briksha. 10. He held that Ram Murat has matured his sirdari rights and hence has dismissed the appeal of Ram Briksha. 10. Ram Briksha feeling aggrieved filed Revision No. 3155 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation went through the revenue records filed by both the parties as also the irrigation slips and held that Ram Murat has proved possession since the time of his father 1334F and, therefore being the recorded occupant he was rightly declared as Adhiwasi on the date of vesting and subsequently sirdar of the land in question. He has affirmed the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation in favour of Ram Murat and rejected the claim of Ram Briksha since Ram Briksha had failed to prove how his name came in khasra of 1357F for the first time. The revision filed by Ram Briksha was, therefore, dismissed. 11. From the aforesaid findings of all the three Courts below it is apparent that the possession of Ram Murat (Respondent No. 4) was proved by documentary evidence from prior to 1334F till the start of consolidation proceedings. On the other hand the petitioner, Ram Briksha could not prove how his name was entered in the khasra of 1357F which was a first time entry of Ram Briksha in the khasra. The aforesaid is a finding of fact recorded concurrently by all the three Courts below and perusal of the said judgments clearly establishes that Ram Murat from the time of his father has been regularly recorded in the khasra and khatauni from 1334F. The name of Ram Briksha appeared for the first time in khasra of 1357F and there was no evidence led by him to prove that his name was recorded in accordance with the procedure prescribed, therefore, in the absence of any evidence in favour Ram Briksha of being an occupant on the relevant date or being in continuous possession the findings of fact recorded by all the three Courts below do no suffer from any error in fact and hence require no interference in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. 12. The petitioner has argued that when there is a claim on the basis of adverse possession then the claim has to be specific unequivocal and in clear terms where it is necessary to assert possession over a particular plot which he does not own as of right. It is submitted that a right of ownership and right claimed by adverse possession cannot be raised simultaneously. It is stated that on the one hand Ram Murat claimed that he got the plot in question on a partition but he failed to prove any partition in the family, therefore, once claim of ownership as of right was advanced by Ram Murat he could not be granted sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. For the said submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Shailendra Amar Singh v. Harnam Singh, 1997(2) AWC 1124 . 13. For the similar submission, reliance has been placed in the case of Vishwambhar Singh v. Durbin Singh, 2010(7) ADJ 816 and it is stated that when there is no claim of open and hostile possession and it is not so proved against the actual owner, right cannot be conferred on the person claiming adverse possession. 14. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Yadunath Singh v. D.D.C. and others, 2010 (111) RD 409 and it has been argued that adverse possession in respect of agricultural land is quite different from the adverse possession of a building. In the case of agricultural land possession has to be retained every year after crop is harvested and if there is any break in possession the previous length of possession stands washed away. In case, the possession is not established every year from the evidence then the entry of possession would be not in accordance with law and the procedural rules for recording possession if not complied with would render the entry nonest. 15. Insofar as the finding of the Courts below that Ram Murat matured rights as adhiwasi on the date of vesting on the basis of revenue entries and long possession is concerned, the finding is that entries in the khasra and khatauni and the irrigation slips show continued possession of the father of Ram Murat and thereafter of Ram Murat. 15. Insofar as the finding of the Courts below that Ram Murat matured rights as adhiwasi on the date of vesting on the basis of revenue entries and long possession is concerned, the finding is that entries in the khasra and khatauni and the irrigation slips show continued possession of the father of Ram Murat and thereafter of Ram Murat. The break if any is alleged to be in 1357F when for the first time the name of Ram Briksha came in the khasra. 16. The entry of name of father of Ram Murat and subsequently of Ram Murat is an entry from 1334F regularly and being a continuous and old entry a presumption of its genuineness can be raised. The doubt regarding a revenue entry would be when for the first time another person is recorded in the khasra (not khatauni). In the present case Ram Briksha came to be recorded for the first time in the khasra of 1357F. It was he, who was required to prove how his name has come in the revenue records and to also prove that he has been in possession from much before. The record indicates that continuous possession has not been proved by Ram Briksha and only few irrigation slips have been produced by him of some years. The entry of Ram Briksha in khasra of 1357F has also not been justified by any evidence to show that the procedure under the Land Revenue Manual was followed before making an entry in his favour in the khasra of 1357F for the first time. Therefore, when the entry itself is doubtful and its genuinity has not been proved by Ram Briksha then such a suspicious entry cannot be held to be an evidence of break in continuous possession of Ram Murat. Insofar as the decision in the case of Yadunath Singh (Supra) is concerned, the ratio laid down therein regrading break in continuous possession cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case and the findings of fact recorded by all the three Courts below in favour of Ram Murat are based on evidence. 17. All the three Courts below have recorded a finding of fact on the possession of Ram Murat from time of his father (1334F). 17. All the three Courts below have recorded a finding of fact on the possession of Ram Murat from time of his father (1334F). It has been argued that if the possession of Ram Murat was not open and it was not hostile then since the property comes from common ancestors Ram Briksha being of the family would also have his interest in the plot in question. For the aforesaid submissions, the essential ingredients to be shown by Ram Briksha would be that the land was recorded in the name of a common ancestor and Ram Murat was recorded in a representative capacity. In the present case the land in question was recorded in the name of father of Ram Murat since prior to 1334F and there is no evidence led by Ram Briksha to indicate that the name of father of Ram Murat was entered in a representative capacity. There is also no evidence or pleading taken by Ram Briksha to indicate that the property in question is coming down from common ancestor and has continuity in its identity so as to show rights of other members of the family, therefore, in the absence of such a proof the question of open and hostile possession of Ram Murat would not arise. Ram Murat came in possession after the death of his father and his father was in possession and recorded as occupant since prior to 1334F. No claim was made by Ram Briksha or his predecessors over the land in question nor they were recorded in the revenue records prior to 1357F. 18. A submission has been advanced that Ram Murat admitted in his oral statement that he came in possession of the land through his father in a partition. But the partition was not proved. The said submission appears to be based upon alleged weakness if any in the pleading of Ram Murat. The said pleading is not in the form of an objection under Section 9A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act but it is from the oral statement given by Ram Murat before the Consolidation Authorities. The said oral statement of Ram Murat has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A reading of the same indicates that Ram Murat had said that Ram Briksha belongs to his extended family. The said oral statement of Ram Murat has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A reading of the same indicates that Ram Murat had said that Ram Briksha belongs to his extended family. After that he has nowhere admitted any share of Ram Briksha but has gone on to clearly say that he has been in possession from time of his father and also stated that the grand father of Ram Briksha and the grand father of Ram Murat had separated in their time. He claimed that the partition was affected five to six generations earlier as a consequence of which Ram Briksha gained rights over 2 to 3 vishwa of land. From the said oral statement the fact that the family partition was found not to have been proved by any other evidence would not be material when the entry in the name of Ram Briksha in 1357F for the first time was a suspicious entry whereas the entry in the name of Ram Murat and his father was coming continuously from prior to 1334F in the khasra as also the khatauni. Clearly he was the occupant duly recorded hence became an Adhiwasi under Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 19. Apart from the above noted factual aspect of the revenue records it is settled law that an entry in the revenue records must be an entry in accordance with the rules and made by a duly authorised persons. A forged entry or entries made by unauthorised person cannot be said to be an entry of occupation. Under Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act the requirement is that the person who was recorded as occupant of the land in the khasra or khatauni of 1356F which was prepared under Section 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall be called an Adhiwasi of the land. Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act requires that for acquisition of Adhiwasi rights the person should be recorded as occupant and not that besides being so recorded he should be in actual possession during that year. The submission that such occupant must have some rightful claim or interest in the land before he can claim to be an Adhiwasi is not the requirement of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 20. The submission that such occupant must have some rightful claim or interest in the land before he can claim to be an Adhiwasi is not the requirement of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 20. Therefore when Ram Murat was recorded in the revenue records since the time of his father (1334F) till the basic year and the petitioner’s name came in the revenue record for the first time in khasra of 1357F then it has to be found out whether the name of Ram Briksh was recorded for the first time in accordance with the procedure prescribed and by an authorised person. The Courts below have held that the name of Ram Briksh was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of law nor by an authorised person. No evidence was led by Ram Briksh to show how his name came in the revenue record in khasra of 1357F for the first time. This indicates that the entry was manipulated and would be a fraudulent entry hence no rights can accrue to Ram Briksh on the basis of this suspicious revenue entry. As a consequence of these concurrent findings of fact the benefit of Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act cannot be claimed by Ram Briksh. The fact that he was not an occupant of the land is thus established hence he would have no claim to be an Adhiwasi on the date of vesting. Under such circumstances it cannot be held that Ram Murat was recorded in the revenue record in a representative capacity. It has rightly been held that Ram Murat was the recorded occupant of the land on the relevant date hence he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(b) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He being the occupant recorded in the revenue records obtained the status of Adhiwasi on the date of vesting. No error in law can be found in the impugned orders of the Courts below. 21. For the aforesaid reasons it has rightly been held that Ram Murat (Respondent No. 4) being occupant duly recorded in the revenue record became an Adhiwasi and subsequently matured sirdari rights. The petitioner Ram Briksh was not a recorded occupant of the land hence he obtained no rights of an Adhiwasi and could not claim any share in the land. For the aforesaid reasons it has rightly been held that Ram Murat (Respondent No. 4) being occupant duly recorded in the revenue record became an Adhiwasi and subsequently matured sirdari rights. The petitioner Ram Briksh was not a recorded occupant of the land hence he obtained no rights of an Adhiwasi and could not claim any share in the land. Admittedly, no dispute was raised by the petitioner or his father from 1334F till the date of vesting under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act nor any dispute was raised in any competent Court before start of consolidation proceedings. 22. No interference is required in the impugned orders passed by the Consolidation Authorities. 23. This writ petition has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. The interim orders, if any, operating in this writ petition are vacated. 25. No order is passed as to costs. ——————