JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. (Ref:- Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 90136 of 2014) Heard learned counsel for the applicants. Application for substitution, filed consequent upon deaths of Geetam Singh and Satyadeo and for taking on record their heirs, is not opposed. Substitution application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to make necessary correction in the array of the parties within a week. (Ref:-Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 250315 of 2015 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 250318 of 2015 Heard learned counsel for the applicants) Delay in filing the substitution application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and is, accordingly, condoned. Application for substitution, filed consequent upon death of Jyoti Prasad, and for taking on record his heirs, is not opposed. Substitution application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to make necessary correction in the array of the parties within a week. (Ref:-Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.11 of 2023 & Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 12 of 2023 Heard learned counsel for the applicants) Delay in filing the substitution application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and is, accordingly, condoned. Application for substitution, filed consequent upon death of Than Singh and for taking on record his heirs, is not opposed. Substitution application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicants is directed to make necessary correction in the array of the parties within a week. Order on petition. 1. Heard Sri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Brij Raj Singh and Sri. Mahendra Nath Pandey, learned counsel for contesting respondents. 2. This case is arising out of proceedings under Section 9 -A of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act of 1953’). 3. The following pedigree is not much under dispute. 4. It also not under dispute that originally the land belonged to Pitambar and in the khatauni of 1346 Fasli, name of Bateshwari was recorded with a remark having possession for last 22 years. Later on in the khatauni of 1349 Fasli, name of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were also recorded alongwith Bateshwari with a remark having possession for last 23 years. 5. Objections were filed by both the parties. 6. Later on in the khatauni of 1349 Fasli, name of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were also recorded alongwith Bateshwari with a remark having possession for last 23 years. 5. Objections were filed by both the parties. 6. Legal heirs of Bateshwari have claimed that their father was the sole tenure holder and he was in possession of land in question for the last 22 years and name of other brothers of their were wrongly recorded, without any order or basis, whereas petitioners have claimed that names of legal heirs of brothers of Bateshwari were recorded with consent of their older brother Bateshwari and during his lifetime said Bateshwari has never objected their names. The names recorded during consolidation proceedings could not be set-aside since there ws a presumption of long standing revenue entries to be correct. 7. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 12.1.2007 allowed the objection of contesting respondents and rejected the objections of petitioners and names of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam and their legal heirs were expunged on a ground, that they were recorded without any order or legal heirs. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 8. Aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 2.6.2008. Settlement Officer of Consolidation held that since name of appellants were recorded with the consent of Bateshwari in the year 1349 Fasli, therefore, legal heirs of Bateshwari have no right to object it, since their father has not objected it during his lifetime. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 9. In aforesaid circumstances, contesting respondents filed a revision petition before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed vide order dated 24.10.2011 and order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation was set-aside and upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the petitioners have failed to prove the basis on which their names were entered in the revenue records of 1349 Fasli for the first time. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed. 11. Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the petitioners have failed to prove the basis on which their names were entered in the revenue records of 1349 Fasli for the first time. Relevant part of the order is reproduced hereinafter: 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, present writ petition has been filed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that names of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were recorded with the consent of Bateshwari, i.e. their elder brother, who has never objected their names in his lifetime, therefore, there was no reason for son of Bateshwari to object it after many years. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgments passed by Supreme Court as well as of this Court in D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr. Vs. L. Balasubramanyam & Anr. (2003) 10 SCC 310 and Saraswati Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Allahabad & Ors. 2011 SCC OnLine All 2762. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that since there was no basis for entry in revenue records in favour of the petitioners in the 1349 Fasli being arbitrary and without any basis, therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly interfered. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 15. In the present case, few facts are not disputed that in the years 1346-1347-1348 Fasli name of only Bateshwari was recorded so far as land in dispute is concerned: (a) Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were real brothers of Bateshwari. For the first time in 1349 Fasli, names of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were also recorded along with Bateshwari. (b) Aforesaid entries remained unchallenged during the lifetime of Bateshwari and for the first time it was challenged at the behest of Jyoti Prasad, son of Bateshwari, respondent no.3 in the year 1989 during consolidation proceedings. 16. The Consolidation Officer accepted the objection of respondent no.3 that names of brothers of Bateshwari were recorded without any order or legal basis. Said finding was upset by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that their names were recorded with the consent of Bateshwari and since it was not challenged by him during his lifetime, his son cannot challenge the same at a belated stage. Said finding was confirmed/upheld by the Board of Revenue. 17. Said finding was upset by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation that their names were recorded with the consent of Bateshwari and since it was not challenged by him during his lifetime, his son cannot challenge the same at a belated stage. Said finding was confirmed/upheld by the Board of Revenue. 17. There is no order on record which could prove the basis of the names of the brothers of Bateshwari and suddenly, in the year 1349 Fasli, claim of the petitioners appeared that their forefathers name was entered with the consent of petitioners. 18. In this regard Court takes note of statement recorded during consolidation proceedings of Jyoti Prasad and Jagjit though they have not referred any basis of entries in the year of 1349 Fasli, but they have stated that their ancestors i.e. Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam have taken benefit of entries which were very old and Bateshwari has never stopped them. 19. There is no allegation that entries were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. 20. The only question before this Court is the effect of long standing revenue entries especially in circumstances when Bateshwari has never challenged the said entries during his lifetime and it was objected by his son at a very belated stage. 21. It is also relevant to note that there is no material on record to support the submissions in regard to consent. 22. In this regard Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Pratap Singh (Dead) through LRs. Vs. Shiv Ram (Dead) through LRs. (2020) 11 SCC 242 . Relevant paragraphs being 25,26 and 27 thereof are as under: 25. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously [Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, (1976) 3 SCC 642 ] or where such entry has not been made by following the prescribed procedure [Bhimappa Channappa Kapali v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda, (2012) 13 SCC 759 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 419]. Even in Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349 : AIR 1994 SC 227 ] where thirty years' old lease deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of the relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of receipt of payment of rent. 26. Even in Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand, (1993) 4 SCC 349 : AIR 1994 SC 227 ] where thirty years' old lease deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of the relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of receipt of payment of rent. 26. Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-à-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level. 27. In view thereof, we find that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the defendant's appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. The onus of proof was placed on the defendant by the learned trial court. The burden is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per Section 109 of the Evidence Act. The defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant.” 23. In aforesaid circumstances, I am of considered opinion that only the basis that there was no order to record the names of Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam in the entries of 1349 Fasli would not be a sole ground to rebut the presumption of truth in the long standing revenue entries specially when it is not under dispute that Ghanshyam, Makkhan Lal and Harnam were real brothers of Bateshwari as well as Bateshwari has never objected the entries during his lifetime. 24. There is a reference of revenue entries of the year 1349 Fasli that all the recorded tenure holders were having possession for last 23 years, therefore, the objection of respondent no.3 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness of long standing revenue entries. 25. Accordingly, Court is of considered opinion that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly held that there was no ground to presume the entries to be wrong which was wrongly disturbed by the Board of Revenue. 26. 25. Accordingly, Court is of considered opinion that Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rightly held that there was no ground to presume the entries to be wrong which was wrongly disturbed by the Board of Revenue. 26. Accordingly, the order 24.10.2011 passed by Apar Ziladhikari/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Firozabad is hereby set-aside and the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is upheld. 27. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.