JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh, for contesting respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 06.06.2015, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to land of basic consolidation year khata 284 of village Dakhinara, tahsil Shikohabad, district Firozabad. In basic consolidation records, khata in dispute was recorded in the names of Mihi Lal son of Summer, Arami, Dharmjeet and Hakim Singh sons of Ninnu and Shripat son of Rate. Shripat (respondent-3) filed an objection for deleting the names of other recorded persons from the khata in dispute. It has been stated by respondent-3 that the land in dispute was property of his maternal grand father Vovid, which was obtained by him in partition of joint family property in the year 1941. Later on, it was inherited by him and his brother Charani. Charani died issueless as such he was sole owner of the khata in dispute. The names of other persons were un-authorizedly recorded over it. 4. Mihi Lal and others (now represented by the petitioners) contested the case on the ground that after partition of joint family property, Vovid and his heirs was found themselves unable to pay rent to zamindar of the land in dispute as such they co-opted Ninnu and others, their predecessors, as co-tenant in the land in dispute with the consent of zamindar. Their names were validly recorded in khatauni prior of abolition of zamindari. They were co-sharers in the khata in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share and their names were through out recorded without any objection to Vovid or Shripat and Charani. Shripat obtained bhumidhari certificate in respect of his 1/2 share in plots 618 and 620 and executed a sale deed in favour of Rajendra Singh and Smt. Malti Devi, in 1982, whose names were mutated by the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 30.10.1982. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.09.1990, held that the names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute since before date of vesting. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.09.1990, held that the names of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute since before date of vesting. Shripat had knowledge about the entry of the names of the petitioners over the land in dispute in 1359 F, thereafter in 1982 at the time of execution of sale deed and obtaining bhumidhari certificate, but he never raised any objection against their names prior to consolidation operation. He obtained bhumidhari certificate in respect of 1/2 share as such his share was 1/2 only. On these findings, he held that share of Shripat was 1/2 only and dismissed the objection of Shripat. 5. Shripat filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 249) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 06.08.1992, held that joint family of Vovid and Shyama consisted 17.92 acre land jointly recorded in khata 47 in 1348 F, which was partitioned between Vovid and the descendants of Shyama by order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.12.1941, passed in Case no. 42/5, in which separate kurra of an area of 5.45 acre land was prepared in the name of Vovid. Same land came to be recorded in the names of Charani and Shripat, in 1349 F, in khata 21. From copies of Pariwar Register it was proved that Charani and Shripat were living separately from family of Ninnu and others. Under some mistake, names of Ninnu others were recorded over the disputed land along with Charani and Shripat, in 1359 F, although the land, which was given in kurras of Sarnam and Mihi Lal in partition suit, were separately recorded in their names. The names of predecessors of the petitioners were recorded in 1359 F khatauni without any basis. On these findings, the appeal was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 14.09.1991 was set aside and the names of predecessor of the petitioners were directed to be deleted from the land in dispute. Mihi Lal and others (now represented by the petitioners) filed revision (registered as Revision No. 181) against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 22.07.1993. 6. Gujj Lal filed a writ petition (registered as Writ B No. 21511 of 1993) against the aforesaid orders. Mihi Lal and others (now represented by the petitioners) filed revision (registered as Revision No. 181) against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 22.07.1993. 6. Gujj Lal filed a writ petition (registered as Writ B No. 21511 of 1993) against the aforesaid orders. This Court, by order dated 02.02.2015 found that Consolidation Officer relying upon khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F, receipts of rent and land revenue and bhumidhari certificate obtained by Shripat in 1982 found that Shripat and Charani had co-opted Ninnu and others in the land in dispute. The findings of Consolidation Officer has been reversed ignoring aforesaid materials. As such the writ petition was allowed and matter has been remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh after hearing the parties and considering entire materials on record. 7. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, found that entry in settlement khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F are not conclusive proof. Order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.12.1941, passed in partition Suit no. 42/5 has been incorporated in khata 47 of 1348 F. According to partition decree, 2.73 acre land came in share of Indrapal, 2.73 acre land came in share of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal jointly and 5.45 acre land came in share of Vovid. It has also been noted in khatauni 1348 F that Charani and Shripat were daughter's sons of Vovid. According to the partition decree, khatauni 1349 F was prepared, in which, the names of Charani and Shripat sons of Rate were recorded in khata 21, consisting eight plots of an area of 5.45. Same plots with same area were recorded in khata 11 of 1356 F khatauni, in which along with Charani and Shripat, names of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal sons of Summer were also recorded and same entry continued later on. Issue as to on what basis, the names of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal Summer were recorded in 1356 F over the land which was separately given in share of Charani and Shripat, in partition suit? According to the petitioners, Charani and Shripat were unable to pay rent to zamindar as such they co-opted Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal as co-tenant of 1/2 share with the consent of zamindar. According to the petitioners, Charani and Shripat were unable to pay rent to zamindar as such they co-opted Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal as co-tenant of 1/2 share with the consent of zamindar. The petitioners have filed 4 rent receipts, out of which one of the year 1358 F, one of the year 1359 F and two were of the year 1397 F. But no evidence of payment of rent in 1356 F was filed as such it was not proved that for payment of rent, Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal were co-opted as co-tenant. So far as the plea of obtaining bhumidhari certificate by Shripat in 1982, is concerned, no evidence has been filed in this respect. All sirdars were conferred bumidhari right w.e.f. 28.01.1977 under U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977 as such in year 1982, there was no need to obtain bhumidhari certificate by Shripat. Only on the basis of sale deed executed in respect of half area of any plot, it cannot be said that Shripat was having 1/2 share only. Thus the petitioners could not prove that on what basis, their names were recorded over the land in dispute in 1356 F. Entry of 1356 F continued up to basic consolidation year 1397 F. On the basis of unauthorized entry, no right can be conferred to the petitioners. On these findings, he dismissed the revision of the petitioners and directed for deleting their names. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that after partition, Shripat and his brother Charani found themselves unable to pay rent to the zamindar as such they co-opted Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal as co-tenants of 1/2 share in the land in dispute with the consent of zamindar. Their names were validly recorded in khatauni prior of abolition of zamindari. In khatauni 1356 F, period of cultivation were noted as from 1352 F, which corresponds to 1945. Continuous entry of the names of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal from 1352 F up to 1397 F, was never challenged by respondent-3 prior to consolidation operation, which was started in 1989. A long standing entry, which includes two settlement year 1356 F and 1359 F cannot be deleted as held by Supreme Court in Amba Prasad Vs. Mahboob Ali, AIR 1965 SC 54 , Sri Nath Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue, AIR 1968 SC 1351 , Wali Mohammad Vs. A long standing entry, which includes two settlement year 1356 F and 1359 F cannot be deleted as held by Supreme Court in Amba Prasad Vs. Mahboob Ali, AIR 1965 SC 54 , Sri Nath Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue, AIR 1968 SC 1351 , Wali Mohammad Vs. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 , Hira Lal Vs. Gajjan, (1990) 3 SCC 285 , Sahibdar Khan Vs. Sadloo Khan, AIR 2003 SC 2073 and Ram Avadh Vs. Ram Das, (2008) 8 SCC 58 and this Court in Ram Nath Singh Vs. DDC and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 283 . There is presumption of correctness of settlement year entry. Burden was upon the respondent to prove that entry of 1356 F and 1359 F were incorrect. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally shifted burden of proof upon the petitioners. It is not expected from rustic villagers to maintain rent receipts from 1352 F, particularly when title and possession of the petitioners was not challenged for a long time. Some of the receipts, which were available with the petitioners, have been filed. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally drawn adverse inference for not filing of the receipts of the year, when co-tenancy was stared. The petitioners were co-sharers in the khata in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share and through out in joint possession of it and were paying rent to zamindar. Their names were through out recorded without any objection to Shripat. Shripat executed a sale deed in the year 1982 in favour of Rajendra Singh and Smt. Malti Devi, of his 1/2 share in plots 618 and 620. Thus he again acknowledged 1/2 share of the petitioners. The respondents took the case, that entry in 1356 F and 1359 F are fraudulent entry. Under the law he was required to plead particulars of fraud and prove it by giving positive evidence as held by Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M/S Chaturbhai M. Patel and Company, AIR 1976 SC 712 and Ranganayakamma Vs. K.S. Prakash, (2008) 15 SCC 673 . But no evidence has been adduced by him. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, attaches presumption of correctness of settlement year khatauni. But no evidence has been adduced by him. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, attaches presumption of correctness of settlement year khatauni. Khatauni of 1356 F and 1359 F are settlement year khatauni. The respondent filed khatauni 1348 F and 1349 F and proved that joint family property has been partitioned between Vovid and descendants of Shyama, who were brothers by decree of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.12.1941, passed in partition Suit no. 42/5, which was incorporated in khata 47 of 1348 F. According to partition decree, 2.73 acre land came in share of Indrapal, 2.73 acre land came in share of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal jointly and 5.45 acre land came in share of Vovid. It has also been noted in khatauni 1348 F that Charani and Shripat being daughter's sons of Vovid were his heirs. According to the partition decree, khatauni 1349 F was prepared, in which, the names of Charani and Shripat sons of Rate were recorded in khata 21, consisting eight plots of an area of 5.45, which had come in the share of Vovid in partition suit. Same plots with same area were recorded in khata 11 of 1356 F khatauni, in which along with Charani and Shripat, names of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal sons of Summer were also recorded and this entry continued later on. Thus the respondent has proved that land which was came in exclusive share of Vovid was inherited by him but names of Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal were wrongly recorded over it along with their names in 1356 F khatauni without any basis. Thus presumption of correctness stood rebutted from the evidence of the respondent. Now burden of proof shifted upon the petitioners to prove that their names were correctly recorded. 10. The petitioners took plea that Charani and Shripat were unable to pay rent of the land in dispute to zamindars as such they co-opted Ninnu, Sarnam and Mihilal as co-sharers of 1/2 share in the land in dispute with the consent of zamindar. Section 33 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which was applicable at the relevant time provides as follows- Section 33. Section 33 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which was applicable at the relevant time provides as follows- Section 33. Interest of other tenants.- (1) The interest of a tenant holding on special terms in Oudh, of an ex-proprietary tenant, of an occupancy tenant, of a hereditary tenant, and of a non-occupancy tenant is heritable, but is not transferable otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2)Notwithstanding in forgoing provisions of this section shall render illegal- (a) a sub-lease of a holding as hereinafter provided. (b) a sale of the interest of a tenant under the provisions of Section 251. (c) a release or transfer of an interest in favour of a co-tenants. Provided that no person shall be deemed to be a co-tenant notwithstanding that he may have shared in the cultivation of the holding, unless he was a co-tenant from the commencement of the tenancy, or has become such by succession or has been specifically recognized as such in writing by the land holder. 11. Thus under law, a written consent of zamindar was necessary for co-option. No such written consent of zamindar was produced by the petitioners. Theory of the petitioners that they had been through out paying rent of their half shares has also not been proved by them as the petitioners have filed 4 rent receipts, out of which one of the year 1358 F, one of the year 1359 F and two were of the year 1397 F. Apart from it, there are noting in khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F that original khataunis were in torn condition, which itself create a doubt regarding its correctness. Thus the findings that the petitioners could not prove that they were co-opted as co-tenant or paying rents of half share or were in possession of the land in dispute, do not suffer from any illegality. An illegal and unauthorized entry in khatauni cannot become a legal entry only on the ground that it has been perpetuated for a long time due to negligence of revenue authority or right owner as such on its basis no right can accrue to any one. 12. An illegal and unauthorized entry in khatauni cannot become a legal entry only on the ground that it has been perpetuated for a long time due to negligence of revenue authority or right owner as such on its basis no right can accrue to any one. 12. Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR 1976 SC 1485 , held that it is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. This judgment has been followed in Wali Mohhd. Vs. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 . Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.), (2002) 9 SCC 509 , it has been held that the entry in the revenue record must have a legal basis. Further there was no adjudication of dispute as regards continuance of the wrong entry. The appellant could not have claimed any title over the land in dispute merely on the basis of wrong entry which continued in its favour through negligence or failure of the Revenue Officer or the Consolidation Officer to correct the record, in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue which had attained finality. In the consolidation proceedings, the Collector is also the District Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is authorized to correct any wrong entry continued in the consolidation record in that capacity in the exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 13. A Special Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges in Basdeo Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 1974 RD 188 (SB) and Supreme Court in Bechan Vs. Kankar, 1972 RD 219 (SC) and Ram Harakh Vs. 13. A Special Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges in Basdeo Vs. Board of Revenue U.P. and others, 1974 RD 188 (SB) and Supreme Court in Bechan Vs. Kankar, 1972 RD 219 (SC) and Ram Harakh Vs. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1988) 7 SCC 484, held that in order to get right under Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on basis of entry of "recorded occupant" in 1356 F and 1359 F, entry must have been made according to the provisions of Land Records Manual and genuine. In the present case, it has been found that the entry of the names of the petitioners was not a genuine entry as such under law no right accrued to them on the basis of unauthorized entry. 14. There is difference between "fraud" and "fabricated entry". Supreme Court in Reliance Salt Ltd. v. Cosmos Enterprises, (2006) 13 SCC 599 , held that ''Fraud' means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract-- (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; (2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive; (5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. Explanation.--Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech." Supreme Court in Bachan v. Kankar, (1972) 2 SCC 555 , held that fabricated entry is 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. Thus case law relied upon by the petitioners, on the proposition of "fraud" has no application in this case. Thus case law relied upon by the petitioners, on the proposition of "fraud" has no application in this case. Only this much was required to be examined that entry in favour of the petitioners was genuine or fabricated and un-authorized. It has been found that entry of the names of the petitioners in khata in dispute was un-authorized. There is no illegality in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 15. In view of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has merit and is dismissed.