JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.1.1991 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya Ji), whereby Revision No.31/15 filed by Ale Hasan, opposite party no.2 (now dead) under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short ‘the Act’) was allowed. 2. The Assistant Director of Consolidation vide impugned order while allowing the revision, had directed for deletion of the name of the petitioners from the land in Gata Nos.294/0-19-15, 295/0-18-0 and 296/0-17-0 which are part of Khata No.48 and for recording the name of opposite party no.2 as intermediary bhumidhar in the record of 1360 Fasli. 3. During the consolidation proceedings, opposite party no.2 (since deceased) filed objection in respect of the land of three plots of Khata No.48 i.e. 294, 295 and 296 claiming sirdari rights on the basis of his adverse possession. The dispute between the parties could not be reconciled before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer. Opposite party no.2 in order to establish the adverse possession, filed copies of the Khatauni of 1350 Fasli and un-certified copy of Khasra of 1355 Fasli. Opposite party no.2 also filed Khatauni of 1356 Fasli, wherein the disputed plots were recorded in Part-II of Khatauni, but in Khasra of 1359 Fasli, it was found that name of opposite party no.2 was written in the remarks column after scoring out the name of some other person. 4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.12.1979 rejected the objection filed by opposite party no.2 after considering the evidence and submissions placed by the parties. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues for decision, which are as under :- “1. Whether Ale Hasan is sirdar under Section 210 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of disputed three plots of Khasra No.48 and ; 2. Whether the petitioners herein are in possession of the land in dispute as sirdar and whether the entry in Column-9 in favour of Ale Hasan is a forged entry ?” 5. The Consolidation Officer held that entry in Column-9 in favour of opposite party no.2 was not made in accordance with Paras A80 and Para A81 of Land Records Manual and, therefore, opposite party no.2 could not claim adverse possession in respect of the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that entry in Column-9 in favour of opposite party no.2 was not made in accordance with Paras A80 and Para A81 of Land Records Manual and, therefore, opposite party no.2 could not claim adverse possession in respect of the land in dispute. So far as the receipts regarding land rent and canal dues were concerned, it was said that petitioners had already filed an FIR about the missing of these receipts and, therefore, the same could not be relied on to hold the possession of opposite party no.2 over the land in dispute and thus, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of opposite party no.2. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.12.1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer, opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 23.4.1982 dismissed the appeal filed by opposite party no.2. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that opposite party no.2 himself had admitted that his father was Shikmi Khasthkar of the disputed land, which means he was a sub-tenant of the disputed land. A sub-tenant recorded in 1358 Fasli could not claim to be adhivasi and, he could not become sirdar as claimed by him. As per the provisions of Sections 240A and 240B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, every adhivasi became sirdar on the date immediately preceding the appointed date i.e. 30.10.1954 after the State Government notification issued in the official gazette. For ready reference, Sections 240A and 240B read as under:- “240A. Acquisition of rights, title and interest of land-holder in the land held by adhivasi. -(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of the U.P. Land Reforms (amendment) Act. 1954. the State Government may, by notification published in the official Gazette, declare that as from a date to be specified therein the rights, title and interest of the land-holder in the land which, on the date immediately preceding the said date, was held or deemed to be held by an adhivasi, shall as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the appointed date), shall cease and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances. (2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of subsection (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification. 240B. Consequences on acquisition of rights, title and interest under Section 240-A. -Where a notification under Section 240-A has been published in the official Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in Chapters II and IX of this Act, but save as otherwise provided, the following consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) every person who, on the date immediately preceding the appointed date, was or has been deemed to be an adhivasi shall with effect from the appointed date, become [bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] of the land referred to in Section 240-A and held by him as such and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred and imposed upon [bhumidhars with non-transferable rights] by or under this Act; ………...” 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 23.4.1982 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, opposite party no.2 had preferred a revision before the Assistant Director of Consolidation. The Assistant Director of Consolidation had reversed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two consolidation authorities below and allowed the revision as mentioned above. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of possession as against the true owner, but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he can not establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure holder had knowledge of such adverse possession. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he can not establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure holder had knowledge of such adverse possession. He has further submitted that the Consolidation Officer has meticulously observed that as per the provisions of Paras A80 and A81 of the Land Records Manual, father of original petitioners was not given notice of PA-10 before recording possession of another person on his tenure holding, which is evident from Khasra of 1368 Fasli annexed with PA-10, wherein Plot Nos.294 and 295 are mentioned while 1369 Fasli, 1370 Fasli, 1371 Fasli and 1372 Faslis were also annexed with PA-10, wherein Plot Nos.294, 295 and 296 are mentioned, but thumb impression found in 1370 Fasli was without showing name of the noticed person. In 1371 Fasli thumb impression was found on same footage and no thumb impression or signature are given in 1372 Fasli, which would reveal that father of the original petitioners, namely, Khairullah was not noticed with PA-10 in accordance with law before recording possession of another person on his tenure holding, which is a mandatory requirement under Paras A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual. 9. It has further been submitted that in violation of the aforesaid mandatory requirement, the possession recorded over the disputed land, is without authority of law, illegal and invalid being against the mandatory requirement of Paras A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual. It has also been submitted that opposite party no.2 himself has admitted that his father was Shikmi Khasthkar (sub-tenant) of the disputed land. In view of the provisions of Sections 240A and 240B of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954, a person who was in cultivatory possession of the land in 1359 Fasli, became an adhivasi with effect from 1.7.1952 and, once a land holder rights ceased and vested in the State, the adhivasi became a sirdar as consequential measure. He has further submitted that every adhivasi became sirdar on the date immediately preceding the appointed date i.e 30.10.1954 after the publication of the Government’s notification in the official gazette. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that w.e.f. 1.7.1952, right, title and interest of the land holder on the land immediately preceding the said date, was held or deemed to be held as an adhivasi. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that w.e.f. 1.7.1952, right, title and interest of the land holder on the land immediately preceding the said date, was held or deemed to be held as an adhivasi. Every adhivasi became sirdar (bhumidhar with non transferable rights) on the date immediately preceding the appointed date i.e. 30.10.1954. It has also been submitted that from the evidence adduced by the parties, it is evident that neither opposite party no.2 nor his father was adhivasi/sirdar of the disputed land and two consolidation authorities had concurrently held so in their orders. It has also been submitted that revisional authority has not only re-appreciated the whole evidence, but has misread the same while setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two authorities below. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.M.P. No.32871 of 1996, Gurmukh Singh and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital and others, decided on 20.12.1996 (1997 RD 276), to buttress his submission. 12. It has also been submitted that it was not essential for an adhivasi or a person deemed to be an adhivasi to be in actual possession of the land on 29.10.1954 in order that he should acquire sirdari rights under Section 240-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, provided that his adhivasi rights are not extinguished before that date by lapse of time or otherwise. If he was out of possession on that date while still retaining the rights, it did not matter whether he was dispossessed by his landholder or by a stranger or for what period his dispossession lasted. He has further submitted that chak was carved out in favour of the original petitioners and they are in possession over the disputed land. It is, therefore, submitted that writ petition should be allowed and the impugned order being unsustainable, is liable to be quashed. 13. On the other hand, Sri P.V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, has submitted that disputed land relate to Khata No.48 consisting of Plot Nos.249/0-19-15, 295/0-18-0 and 296/0-17-5, situate in Village Sahnemau, Pargana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad (Now Ambedkar Nagar). The said land was recorded in the name of the petitioners. Consolidation operation started and the village concerned came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act in or about 1970-1971. The said land was recorded in the name of the petitioners. Consolidation operation started and the village concerned came to be notified under Section 4 of the Act in or about 1970-1971. He has further submitted that father of opposite party no.2 was recorded without title in the knowledge of the petitioners (tenants) right from 1354 Fasli (year 1947) and, therefore, he perfected his right over the land and must be recognised under Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 14. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also submitted that before enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, which came into operation on 26.1.1951(1358 Fasli), United Provinces Tenancy Act was in operation and, as the name of opposite party no.2 was recorded right from 1354 Fasli (year 1947), his right must be recognized under Section 180(2) of the United Provinces Tenancy Act. It has further been submitted that even under Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, a person, who was in possession of any land on the appointed date, he is recognized as an adhivasi. Opposite party no.2 remained in possession over the land in continuation of his father right from 1354 Fasli i.e. year 1947 and, the recorded tenant never tried to evict him upto the start of consolidation operation in the year 1970-1971. Therefore, under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, rights of opposite party no.2 got perfected under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It has also been submitted that when the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act came into operation, the limitation for ejectment of a person occupying the land without title was three years. He has further submitted that notice of PA-10 was not required inasmuch as this provisions was introduced in the Land Records Manual on 25.2.1958 and thereafter, it was deleted on 31.7.1965, whereas the entry of possession of opposite party no.2 was there much before 1354 Fasli (year 1949). 15. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has also submitted that opposite party no.2 was in possession of the land and, it was proved by receipts regarding rent as well as canal dues submitted by him, and the argument of learned counsel or the petitioners that tenure holder lost the receipts, for which an FIR was lodged, is wholly untenable and could not have been accepted. Payment of the rent and the canal dues were made by opposite party no.2 himself. Name of the recorded tenant was mentioned in the rent receipts because he was recorded in the Khatauni. It is submitted that finding recorded by the revisional authority that though the receipts were in the name of the petitioners, but the payment was made by opposite party no.2, can not be discarded. It has also been submitted that opposite party no.2 had perfected the title in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. He has, therefore, submitted that writ petition being without any merit and substance, is liable to be dismissed. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned counsel for opposite parties. 17. The revision has been allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation only on the ground that in the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli, opposite party no.2 has been mentioned in Column-12 for more than three years as person in possession without right. It has further said that since opposite party no.2 had produced the rent receipts and canal dues though in the name of the petitioner, which would prove that opposite party no.2 was in possession over the land and he was paying the rent. 18. Though the Assistant Director of Consolidation has power under Section 48 of the Act to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below, but the power can not be exercised in the manner as has been exercised by the Assistant Director of Consolidation in the present case. Two authorities have concurrently held on the basis of evidence produced by the authorities that name of opposite party no.2 was recorded without following the due procedure and without adverting to such finding, the Assistant Director of Consolidation has held opposite party no.2 to be in possession of the land on the basis of the entry of his father in Column-12 in the Khatauni of 1356 Fasli. 19. The Assistant Director of Consolidation has not adverted to the findings recorded by the two authorities below regarding the perfection of title on the basis of possession of opposite party no.2 as adhivasi, which was negatived by them. 19. The Assistant Director of Consolidation has not adverted to the findings recorded by the two authorities below regarding the perfection of title on the basis of possession of opposite party no.2 as adhivasi, which was negatived by them. Opposite party no.2 had claimed the actual possession of the land on three disputed plots as mentioned above. However, two authorities have concurrently held that name of opposite party no.2 was recorded in Khatauni of 1354 Fasli and upto 1355, 1359 Faslis without following the mandatory provision without giving notice of PA-10 as is provided in Paras A80 and A81 of the Land Records Manual. 20. In the case of Gurmukh Singh (supra), this Court in paragraph 6 of the judgement held as under :- “6. It is clear from para 102-C of the Land Records Manual that the entries will have no evidentiary value if they are not made in accordance with the provisions of Land Records Manual. There is presumption of correctness of the entries provided it is made in accordance with the relevant provision of Land Records Manual and secondly, in case where a person is claiming adverse possession against the recorded tenure holder and he denies that he had not received any P.A.10 or he had no knowledge of the entries made in the revenue records, the burden of proof is further upon the person claiming adverse possession to prove that the tenure holder was duly given notice in prescribed form P.A.10. Para A-81 itself provides that the notice will be given by the Lekhpal and he will obtain the signature of the Chairman, Land Management Committee as well as from the recorded tenure holder. It is also otherwise necessary to be provided by the person claiming adverse possession. The law of adverse possession contemplates that there is not only continuity of possession as against the true owner but also that such person had full knowledge that the person in possession was claiming a title and possession hostile to the true owner. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure holder had knowledge of such adverse possession." 21. If a person comes in possession of the land of another person, he cannot establish his title by adverse possession unless it is further proved by him that the tenure holder had knowledge of such adverse possession." 21. Even on facts, it is found that entries in subsequent Fasli years i.e. 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371 and 1372 appear to be forged inasmuch as in Khatauni of 1368 Fasli, there is PA-10 mentioned, in which Plot Nos.294 and 295 are mentioned, while in Khataunis of 1369, 1370, 1371 and 1372 Faslis, there is PA-10, wherein Plot Nos.294, 295 and 296 are mentioned, but thumb impression was found in 1370 Fasli without showing name of the noticed person. In 1371 Fasli thumb impression was found on same footage and no thumb impression or signature are found in 1372 Fasli. Thus, no notice of PA-10 in accordance with law was given to the recorded tenure holder before recording the name of opposite party no.2 in Column-9. The rent and canal dues receipts, which are in the name of the petitioners, can not be relied on and, it can not be said that opposite party no.2 was in possession of the land in question as the rent receipts were in the name of the original tenure holder and, as per the original tenure holder, they got lost, for which he had lodged an FIR. 22. In view thereof, I am of the view that the Assistant Director of Consolidation was not correct in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two authorities below regarding entries of opposite party no.2 and, therefore, the order passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation is not tenable in law and is liable to be set aside. 23. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 29.1.1991 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (Now Ayodhya Ji) is hereby set aside. Consequences to follow.