JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha, as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.05.2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, and the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 3. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to plot no.1286 (area 0.470 hectares) situated in village Reotipur, District Ghazipur. 4. On an application of the petitioners, the Pradhan & Lekhpal submitted reports relying upon an enquiry report submitted by the Revenue Inspector in favour of the petitioners. These reports were forwarded by the Tehsildar and accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 06.09.2008 granting the benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B of the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act to the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the SDO the respondents filed an application/complaint before the Collector. This complaint was entertained and the order in favour of the petitioners was recalled on the finding that the earlier reports were incorrect and the petitioners was not in possession over the land in question and that unauthorised manipulations have been made in the revenue records. This order dated 16.05.2011 has been affirmed in revision vide order dated 23.05.2015. 6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners was in possession over the land in question and in view of such long-standing possession, and also in view of the enabling provision contained in sub-section (4-F) of section 122-B, the order was passed by the SDO. This order, granting benefit of sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B was challenged by unconcerned persons, and the order set aside without adverting to the effect of the provision as contained in sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the decision of the Apex Court of Manorey Vs Board of Revenue, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 521 . 7. Learned counsel for respondent 4 has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners were never in possession over the land in question. The entire claim of the petitioners is based exclusively on reports. 7. Learned counsel for respondent 4 has refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted that the petitioners were never in possession over the land in question. The entire claim of the petitioners is based exclusively on reports. He has also placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Sanjai Kumar, Chhunni Lal Vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Gaon Sabha, reported in 2005(3) AWC 2622 . He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, apart from supporting the submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 4, has further placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shambhoo Nath and others Vs. Commissioner, Vidhyachal Region, Mirzapur and others, reported in 2007(1) ADJ 247 , and has submitted that the deeming provision, as contained in sub-section (4-F) of Section 122-B, is not a provision for seeking a declaration of the rights of a person who is in occupation of the Gaon Sabha property, and is, in fact, a defence, which protects the possession of an illegal occupant, in case proceedings are initiated against them under sub-section (1) of Section 122-B, read with Rule 115 of the Act. He, therefore, submits that this defence provided to an agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste cannot be invoked for seeking a declaration under the said provision. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 10. The Commissioner, in my considered opinion, has rightly directed that the entry made in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the order of the SDO be expunged. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the benefit available sub-section (4-F) had been granted to the petitioners relying upon certain reports of the revenue authorities, which reports have been made without initiating any proceedings under Section 122-B, for ejectment of the petitioners. It has been recorded that consequent to the filing of the revision, an enquiry was initiated and the enquiry report indicates that the land is vacant on the spot. 11. It has been recorded that consequent to the filing of the revision, an enquiry was initiated and the enquiry report indicates that the land is vacant on the spot. 11. This Court in the case of Sanjai Kumar, Chunni Lal has held that a claim regarding possession from prior to the cut-off date must be based on documentary evidence and that in such proceedings the State as also the Gaon Sabha are necessary parties. The orders should be passed only after issuing notices to them. It is, therefore, contended that the benefit of sub-section (4-F) should be given to only to those members of the Scheduled Castes whose possession is entered in the revenue records prior to the cut-off date or against whom the proceedings under Section 122B are pending since before this cut-off date. 12. Besides, it has been held by this Court in the case of Shambhoo Nath (supra) that sub-section (4-F) is a defence and the same cannot be invoked for seeking declaration under the said provision, and can be invoked only when eviction proceedings are drawn against a landless agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste who is in possession over the Gaon Sabha land from prior to the cut-off date. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgement are relevant and are being extracted below: "16. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but for the aforesaid provision of Sub-section (4-F), no where recognizes the rights of any person as bhumidhar with transferable or non-transferable rights, as the case may be, unless of course his najne is duly recorded in the revenue records and in the absence of which, he/she seeks declaration by filing a suit under Section 229-B of the Act. It is only by virtue of Sub-section (4-F)of Section 122-B that the Agricultural labourer who fulfills the conditions given therein is not required to seek declaration by filing a suit but can be admitted as bhumidhar with non-transferable rights under Section 195. 17. In the case of co-tenure holder may be a suit, under Section 176 could also be filed either with a declaratory relief or without seeking it as the law may permit." 13. 17. In the case of co-tenure holder may be a suit, under Section 176 could also be filed either with a declaratory relief or without seeking it as the law may permit." 13. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manorey (supra), it would be relevant to notice that although it has been held that sub-section (4-f) of Section 122-B of the Act is a deeming provision and the benefit thereof must be extended, the said case-law has no application in the instant case for the reason that there is no documentary evidence which would show that the petitioners were actually in occupation over the land in question from before the cut-off date. The petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of the case-law cited on his behalf only if they were duly recorded as the occupants in the revenue records from prior to the cut-off date. This is not the position in the case in hand. The khasra which has been annexed with the writ petition is of 1418 F which corresponds to 2011. The cut-off date provided under sub-section (4-F) is 2007. The corresponding khasra would be of 1414 F. Therefore, the document/ khasra of 1418 F does not help the petitioners' case in any manner. The khatauni annexed is of 1417-1422 F which is the current khatauni, prepared subsequent to the order having been passed granting the benefit of sub-section (4-F) of the petitioners. 14. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.