JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for respondents. 2. In present case, initially dispute was in respect of two parcel of land i.e. Gata No.361/1 area 0-2-10 and Gata No.399/1 area 0-14-10 situated in Village Nahri Tappa, now District- Siddharth Nagar, however, the petitioner has not pressed his claim in respect of Gata No.361/1-9-2-10 and, therefore, dispute remains only in respect of Gata No.399/1, 0-14-10. 3. Earlier there were proceedings between parties under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the "Act of 1950"). Suit was decreed in favour of petitioner. However, during appeal thereof, since consolidation proceedings commenced, in village concerned, therefore, appeal was abated. During consolidation proceedings, objections were filed by both parties under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Padesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the "Act of 1953"). 4. The case set up by original petitioner was that his father was in possession of land in dispute and after his death, he continued in possession and for that revenue record of 1364- 69F and 1370-74F were referred. 5. Per contra, claim of original respondents was based on a registered Bainama dated 21.5.1963 executed by Smt. Mudai in favour of original respondents and that in pursuance of it, possession was handed over to original contesting respondents. The Consolidation Officer has framed following three issues: "1. Whether Sadal etc. are bhumidhar of Plot No.361/0-2- 10, 399/1/0-14-10 on the basis of registered sale deed. 2. Whether Samber s/o Nagashar is sirdar in possession over plot No.361/0-3-10. 3. Whether Ram Lal s/o Nirhu is sirdar in possession over plot No.399/1/0-14-10."? 6. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties and considering documents on record accepted the objections filed by original petitioner and rejected the objection filed by contesting respondents vide order dated 30.8.1971. Relevant finding thereof are mentioned hereinafter: "First I take the case of Ram Lal. Ram Lal has stated that he is in possession since long. Sadal says that he is in possession from the date of sale deed. Sadal has not stated that previous to sale deed Bhan Shanker etc. were in possession. It means that they were in possession of Ram Lal before execution of the sale deed. Several evidence is against Sadal etc. Sadal says that he is in possession from the date of sale deed. Sadal has not stated that previous to sale deed Bhan Shanker etc. were in possession. It means that they were in possession of Ram Lal before execution of the sale deed. Several evidence is against Sadal etc. and in favour of Ram Lal as regards papers the name of the father of Ram Lal is recorded in remarks since 1364F. to 1369F. and from 1370F to 1374F. of Ram Lal. After his name is recorded in class IX under the orders of S.K. Brahm Shanker etc. never ejected to Ram Lal. So Ram Lal became sirdar when Ram Lal became sirdar then Brahm Shanker etc. were not bhumidhar and were not entitled to execute the sale deed." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Contesting original respondents have preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. However, same was dismissed by order dated 30.12.1971. Though copy thereof is not on record. However, a typed copy thereof was handed over by counsel for petitioner during hearing which has not been objected by learned counsel for respondents. Contesting original respondents have preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. However, same was dismissed by order dated 30.12.1971. Though copy thereof is not on record. However, a typed copy thereof was handed over by counsel for petitioner during hearing which has not been objected by learned counsel for respondents. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter: ^^vihydrkZ dk dFku gS fd fookfnr xkVks ds Hkwfe/kj igys czã'kadj oxSjg FksA muds chp ,d [kkuxh caVokjk gqvkA ftlls ;g xkVs Jherh eqbnk ds uke gq;sA Jherh eqbnk us mudk cSukek vihydrkZ ds gd esa dj fn;kA mDr cSukek ns[kus ls irk pyrk gS fd dsoy xkVk 399@1 dk mYys[k cSukes esa gSA ;|fi vihydrkZ dk dFku gS fd xYrh ls xkVk la[;k 361 dk mYys[k cSukes esa NwV x;k gSA [kljk 12------- ls izdV gksrk gS fd xkVk 311 esa yxkrkj 1365 Q0 ls jkeiky oxZ 9 vafdr pyk vk;k gS vkSj mlds gd esa fo}ku twfMf'k;y vQlj ukSx< us fMxzh Hkh dj nh gSA bl vkns'k ds ftjg fo}ku vfrfjDr vk;qDr xksj[kiqj eaMy ds le{k Hkh vihy gq;h Fkh tks vcsV gks xbZ gSA jke yky ds brus nh?kZdkyhu v/;klu dks lafnX/k ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa Jherh eqbnk dks bl xkVs dk fodz; djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA vr% fo}ku pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ o fu.kZ; lgh tku iMrk gS vkSj mlesa gLrk{ksi dh vko';drk ugh tkuk iMrkA tgka rd xkVk 361 dk iz'u gS mls fl) djus esa vihydRrkZ iwjh rjg vlQy jgk gSA vihy fujk/kkj gS vkSj [kkfjt djus ;ksX; gS rFkk rnuqlkj gh fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gSA** (Emphasis Supplied) 8. Both above referred authorities have placed reliance on revenue records in favour of Ram Lal i.e. original petitioner and that he was in long continuous possession of land in dispute, therefore, since vendor was not in possession of land in dispute, she was not legally entitled to execute a sale deed consequently, vendee also could not get any right over land in dispute. 9. In above circumstances, original respondents preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by impugned order dated 18.12.1973, whereby orders passed by two lower authorities were set-aside. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter. 9. In above circumstances, original respondents preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed by impugned order dated 18.12.1973, whereby orders passed by two lower authorities were set-aside. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter. ^^4- xkVk la0 399@1 ds fo"k; esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dk dguk gSa fd fookfnr xkVs dks mUgksaus fnukad 21-05-68 ds jftLVMZ cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij eq0 eqbnk vkfn ls [kjhnk vkSj cSukesa ds vk/kkj ij os bl xkVs ds Hkwfe/kj gSaA nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa dh dze'k% vkifRr vkSj vihy [kkfjt dj nh vkSj fookfnr xkVs dk lhjnkj jkeyky dks ?kksf"kr fd;kA v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns'k ds {kqC/k gksdj izLrqr fuxjkuh nk;j dh x;h gSA 5- eSusa mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl dks lquk rFkk voj U;k;ky;ksa dh i=kofy;ksa dk voyksdu Hkh fd;kA 6- jkeyky foi{kh us Jherh eqbnk vkfn ij eq0 la0 870@196----- vUrxZr /kkjk 229 ch0t0fo0vf/k0 ds vUrxZr nk;j fd;k vkSj fo}ku ts0vks0 ukSx< us jkeyky dk okn fnukad 16-09-69 dks fMxzh fd;kA fo}ku ts0vks0 ds vkns'k ds fo:) vihy nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj vihy Lrj ij leLr fookn fnuakd 01-09-70 dks vosV gks x;kA fo}ku ts0vks0 ds vkns'k ds vuqlkj jkeyky dk uke vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ djus dk vkns'k ds vuqlkj lEHkor% jkeyky dk uke vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ djus dk vkns'k gqvkA pwWafd og eqdnesckth vafre :i ugha ys ldh Fkh] vr% i{kksa ds chp bl le; fookn xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ns[k tk ldrk gS tgkWa rd fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa ds LoRo dk iz'u gSa mls fodzsrkvksa eq0 eqbZnk vkfn dh vksj ls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA fuxjkuhdrkZxk.kksa dh vksj ls lun Hkwfe/kjh] jftLVMZ cSukek] ijxuk vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 11-06-69 dh izfr vkfn fyf[kr lk{; nkf[ky fd;s x;s gSa ftuls Li"V gS fd eq0 eqbnk vkfn us fuxjkuhdrkZx.kksa ds i{k esa cukuk vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij ijxuk vf/kdkjksa us veynjken dk vkns'k fd;kA 7- tgkWa rd jkeyky ds LoRo dk iz'u gS mUgksaus dCts ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr xkVs ij lhjnkjh vf/kdkj ekWaxk gSA bl lEcU/k esa 1363 yxk;r 1374 Q0 ds [kljs dh izfr nkf[ky dh x;h gSA 1363 Q0 ls 1369 Q0 rd [kkuk ------- dSfQ;r esa fookfnr xkVs ij fujgw dk dCtk vafdr gS fujgw jkeyky ds firk FkkA pwafd 1363 Q0 ls 1369 Q0 rd ds dCts dh izfof"V;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fujgw viuk lhjnkjh vf/kdkj ifjiDo ugha dj lds Fks] vr% muds fo"k; esa gqbZ dCts dk izfof"V;ksa dk ykHk jkeyky dks ugha fey ldrk 1971 vkj0Mh0 i`"B la0 523 ds vuqlkj vU; O;fDr;ksa ds vukf/kdkj dCts dh izfof"V;ksa dk ykHk nwljks dks ugh fn;k tk ldrkA 1370 Q0 ls 1373 Q0 rd jkeyky dk dCtk [kkuk dSfQ;r esa vafdr gS vkSj 1374 Q0 ls mudk uke f'kdeh ds [kkus esa vk x;k gSA pwWafd jkeyky vkSj eq0 eqbnk vkfn ds chp 1968 ;kuh 1372 Q0 esa eqdnesckth 'kq: gqbZ] vr% mlds ckn ds d`R;ksa ds bUnzktksa ij dksbZ /;ku ugha fn;kA tk ldrk gSA ;fn jkeyky dk dCtk 1370 Q0 ls 1375 Q0 rd dk eku Hkh fy;k tk;s rks Hkh mudk LoRo ifjiDo ugha gksrk] D;ksafd dCts dh 'kq:okr ds ckn okyh Qlyksa ls fe;kn tksMus ij gh 6 o"kZ dh vof/k iwjh ugha gksrhA blds vfrfjDr [kkuk dSfQ;r ds tks Hkh bUnzkt ¼vLi"V½ i{kks esa ls mues i0d0 10 ¼vLi"V½ gokyk ugha gSA 1973 vkj0&Mh0 i`"B la[;k ¼vLi"V½ ds vuqlkj ;fn dCts ds bUnzktksa ds fo"k; esa i0d0 10 dh dk;Zokgh gksus dk izek.k u gqvk gks rks ,slh izfof"V;kWa ugha ekuh tkuh pkfg;sA bl izdkj jkeyky dk LoRo fookfnr Hkwfe ij fl) ugha gksrkA** 10. The Revisional Authority has held that name of original petitioner (Ram Lal) was recorded in revenue records on basis of decree passed in a suit filed under section 229-B of Act of 1950, however, since its appeal was abated therefore, it has no legal value. Father of original petitioner could not perfect his right on basis of entries of 1363F to 1369F being under remark column. The entries from 1370F to 1375F would not be sufficient since not only period for adverse possession would not be complete but Form P.A. 10 was also not mentioned. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that Revisional Authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction and has erroneously interfered with concurrent finding of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and replaced it by own findings. He further submitted that on basis of revenue records long continuous possession of father of original petitioner was proved and thereafter possession of original petitioner continued. Revenue Records were rightly appreciated by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that finding returned by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation that vendor of original respondents was never in possession in land in dispute and further finding that even after a registered Bainama, original respondents (vendee) were never put in possession was not disturbed by the Revisional Authority as well as there was no revenue record that vendor or vendee was ever in possession of land in dispute, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondents has submitted that Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation misread the effect of nature of entries in revenue records. Effect of Entry of original petitioner being under Column 9 (Sikmi) was skipped from consideration by both authorities. Original petitioner or his father has never perfected his right over land in dispute. 14. Learned counsel has further submitted that since there was a perverse finding returned by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, therefore, Revisional Authority has rightly interfered and passed an order on basis of correct appreciation of revenue records. The vendor has sufficient documents to prove her right over land as well right to sell land in dispute to original contesting respondents and it was the basis of order of amal daramad passed by Pargana Adhikari, therefore, impugned order does not require any interference. 15. The vendor has sufficient documents to prove her right over land as well right to sell land in dispute to original contesting respondents and it was the basis of order of amal daramad passed by Pargana Adhikari, therefore, impugned order does not require any interference. 15. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 16. The issue requires consideration is that whether within limited jurisdiction (as it was) the Revisional Authority was justified in interfering with concurrent finding of two authorities. 17. As referred above, original petitioner was given benefit of revenue entries of his as well as his father's possession in revenue records by two authorities however, the Revisional Authority has interfered on ground that original petitioner could not have perfected his right since he was a Sikmi and period of 6 years was not complete and further that details of Form P.A.10 was not referred in revenue records. 18. It was not under dispute that name of father of original petitioner was recorded under column of 'Remarks' since 1346F to 1369F and from 1370F to 1347F and thereafter name of original petitioner was recorded in Class IX under orders of Revenue Authority. Respondents, admittedly never initiated any proceedings to eject father of original petitioner or original petitioner. At this stage, both lower authorities ought to have scrutinized that whether entry was made after due process i.e. Form P.A. 10 was prepared or not, especially when period was less than 6 years however, both lower authorities without considering validity of entry have erroneously declared that father of original petitioner became Sirdar and that since Smt. Mudai were not a Bhumidhar, therefore, she got no right to execute a sale deed in regard to land in dispute. 19. This Court has discussed about importance and procedure of Form P.A. 10 in a judgment passed in case of Mata Din Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors 2023:AHC158629. Relevant paragraphs thereof are extracted hereinafter:: "30. On the face of it, the above approach of Consolidation Officer appears to be contrary to the settled position of law. As referred above, there must be a finding on the basis of clear and unequivocal evidence that possession was hostile to real owner and to denial of his title and knowledge, to the property claimed. On the face of it, the above approach of Consolidation Officer appears to be contrary to the settled position of law. As referred above, there must be a finding on the basis of clear and unequivocal evidence that possession was hostile to real owner and to denial of his title and knowledge, to the property claimed. There must be animus of the person doing those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Consolidation Officer has in very cursory manner has decided the issue of adverse possession, without reference of above referred essential pleadings and nature of evidence being on record. xxxxxx 32. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has placed heavy reliance again only on the entries made in revenue records and has not considered factors relevant for taking decision in regard to adverse possession that the possession was adequate in continuity, publicity and adverse to competitor. Adverse possession requires that all three essential requirements to co-exist at the same time, viz., it should be adequate in continuity, adequate in publicity and adverse to competitors in denial of the title and his knowledge. There must be physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner. However, these important factors also skipped from consideration of Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as two Courts below. 33. I have carefully perused the contents of memo of counter affidavit filed by the respondents, however, they have not stated any averment in regard to any of the factors referred above. Even during the course of argument, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents has not pointed out any relevant detail or factor on record that claim of adverse possession was positively proved in terms of the above referred factors. The Ramdular (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for respondent would not be helpful since it is on the issue of power under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and Revisional Authority has power to reexamine the issue but contrary in present case, Deputy Director of Consolidation has not exercised that power. 34. The Ramdular (supra) relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for respondent would not be helpful since it is on the issue of power under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, and Revisional Authority has power to reexamine the issue but contrary in present case, Deputy Director of Consolidation has not exercised that power. 34. In view of discussion and findings on above referred issues, I am of the considered opinion that all the Authorities under the Consolidation Act have erred and miserably failed to return a finding whether mandatory procedure for recording revenue entries under 'the Manual' was followed and have also erred in returning a finding about adverse possession only on the basis of revenue entries which only indicates the possession of the respondents for less than 12 years as well as that PA-10 was not prepared in terms of the procedure prescribed under 'the Manual' and further erred in placing reliance on the evidence of mukhtar-khas who was not competent to give evidence in regard to facts which were in exclusive knowledge of the original respondent qua to adverse possession. Lastly, the Authorities have also failed to give finding that possession of respondent was nec vi, nec clam, nec precario." 20. From above it would be clearly evident that Form P.A.10 is an important piece of evidence to prove possession of original petitioner to be adverse to real owner, however, both authorities have not considered as to whether Form P.A.10 was prepared according to due process or not. The original petitioner has not brought on record any material that Form P.A.10 was prepared in due process, therefore, I don't find any error that since original petitioner failed to prove Form P.A.10, the lower two authorities have committed a legal error in ignoring a material piece of evidence. The finding returned that original petitioner had perfected his right was not only wrong rather it was perverse. 21. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court has to consider as to whether the Revisional Authority was justified in reversing concurrent findings of two lower authorities within its limited jurisdiction (as then it was). 22. The finding returned that original petitioner had perfected his right was not only wrong rather it was perverse. 21. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court has to consider as to whether the Revisional Authority was justified in reversing concurrent findings of two lower authorities within its limited jurisdiction (as then it was). 22. The Revisional Authority had jurisdiction to interfere with order or orders passed by lower authority or authorities only under such circumstances when authority has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him or acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and as a result of which substantial injustice appeared to have been caused to a tenure holder. (See Act No.XXXVIII of 1958). 23. The word 'substantial' carries importance. Word 'substantial' often means more than 'significant'. Word 'substantial' means 'having substance' 'essential', 'real', 'of sound worth', etc. According to P.Ramanatha Aiyar's: The Law Lexicon 3rd Edition, 2012 meaning of word 'substantial' is 'considerable' and is not the same as 'not substantial'. Hindi translation of word 'substantial' as used in Amendment Act is ' i.e. which goes to the root of dispute. 24. The Supreme Court in Ram Avadh & Ors v. Ram Das & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 58 , has held that concurrent findings of two lower authorities could not be disturbed mainly on basis of assumption or without any basis. It would be relevant that above referred clauses were neither referred nor considered effect of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1982 (U.P.Act No.XX of 1982) enforced with effect from 10.11.1980. 25. In above context word 'substantial irregularity' used in Section 48 of Act of 1953 (as then was) has to be interpreted. As referred above, non-consideration of an important issue that whether Form P.A.10 was prepared by due process or not would definitely be an irregularity and since entire case was based on such entry, therefore, it would definitely be a 'substantial irregularity' and further it would have definitely caused 'substantial injustice' to a tenure holder i.e. respondent herein/revisionist therein. Therefore, I am of a considered opinion that Revisional Authority was legally justified in interfering with concurrent finding of two lower authorities even within its limited jurisdiction since two lower authorities have acted with substantial irregularity and as a result of which substantial injustice was in fact caused to revisionist/respondent herein. 26. Therefore, I am of a considered opinion that Revisional Authority was legally justified in interfering with concurrent finding of two lower authorities even within its limited jurisdiction since two lower authorities have acted with substantial irregularity and as a result of which substantial injustice was in fact caused to revisionist/respondent herein. 26. The petitioner has failed to point out that finding returned by the Revisional Authority were perverse or contrary to record. 27. In consideration of above discussion, I am of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in impugned order, therefore, writ petition has no force. Accordingly dismissed. 28. No order as to costs.