The entry of Qabiz in Khasra, as required by Para A 71(3) of the U. P. Land Records Manual, must be made in red ink. Reliance on revenue entries not made strictly according to the rules is erroneous and cannot be used to confer tenancy rights.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the contesting opposite party Ram Deo now represented by his heirs had claimed a sirdari right in the disputed plots on the basis of his unauthorised occupation for more than statutory period without the consent of the tenure-holders.

( 2 ) IN the basic year the petitioners father Kanhai was recorded as tenure-holder and the contesting opposite party Ram Deo was found in possession over the disputed plots. The petitioners father had contested the claim of contesting opposite party Ram Deo and had alleged that the claim of the contesting opposite party was wholly unfounded and his name should be expunged.

( 3 ) THE Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority gave judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional Court has recognised the claim of the contesting opposite party Ram Deo. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court the petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional Court has patently erred in placing reliance upon the entries in favour of the contesting opposite party, which were not strictly in accordance with the rules, hence the conclusions arrived at by the revisional Court regarding the possession of the contesting opposite party over the plots in dispute has been vitiated in-law and deserves to be set aside.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the comments made by the revisional Court are quite correct in the circumstances of the present case and moreover the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are in the realm of appraisal of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment need not be quashed.

( 6 ) THE second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is that the claim of the petitioners could not be recognised in the disputed plots and the earlier order dismissing the suit of the petitioners would operate as res judicata and it would be final between the parties. In this connection the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has referred to the rulings reported in AIR 1924 Cal 830 Kalimuddin Ahmad v. Esabokuddin and AIR 1942 Cal 539 Abdul Majid Mridha v. Amina Khatun.

( 7 ) I have examined the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties. In my opinion the impugned judgment suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. A heavy burden lies upon a person claiming right on the basis of unauthorised occupation over a plot for more than statutory period without the consent of the tenure-holders. In the present case the revisional Court while recognising the claim of the contesting opposite party has observed as below : -". . . . . . . . Vipakshi Ki Taraf Se Yeh Tark Prastut Kiyagaya Ki Khatauni Me Ankit Amaldaramad Me PA. KA. 10 Ka Ullekh Nahin Kiya Gaya Hai. Unhonne Yeh Bhi Kaha Ki Khasrey Ke Vishesh Vivaran Ke Stambh Me Kabol Ka Ullekh Lal Syahi Se hona Chahiye. Nigrani Karta Ki Taraf Se Khasre Ki Pramnit Pratilipi Prastut Ki Gayee Hai. Mool Khasre Me Kaboeka Ullekh Kis Syahi Se Kiya Gaya Hai. Yeh Is Se Nahin Dekha Ja Sakta Tatha Kewal Syahi Ki Bhinnata Se Pravishit Ki Vaidhta Nahin Badal Jayegi. Khatauni Me Ankit Amaldaramad Me PA. KA. 10 Ka Ullekh Nahin Ha Kintu Iske Na Rahne Se Hi Yeh Nahin Kaha Ja Sakta Ki PA. KA. 10 Jari Nahin Ki Gayee Thi Kyonki Khasre Ki Pramanit Pratilipi Dekhne Se Vidit Hota Hai Ki Usme Iski Sankhya Di Gayee Hai. "

( 8 ) TO my mind the approach of the revisional Court is patently erroneous. The provisions of para A 71 of Land Record Manual enjoins a duty upon the Lekhpal to make entry in the following manner :-"a-71 (3) : if a person other than the one recorded in Col. 4 or 5 is found to be in actual occupation of the plot at the time of the partal, his name shall be recorded in the remarks column as "baquabza" so and so. All such entries shall be made in red ink and in cases in which Court orde