The legal principle established is that settlement entries made after the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 are presumed correct unless proven otherwise, and the reasoning for rejecting adverse possession claims applies differently to settlement entries.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Heard Shri Rahul Sripat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition arises out of objection under section 9-A(2)of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute between the parties pertains to plot numbers 260/141, 268/147 of village Bhadi, District Muzaffarnagar.

2. The objection under section 9-A(2) is filed by the petitioner on the strength of his being recorded under class 9 since 1365 fasli while the contesting respondent was entered in the main column as bhumidhar. The claim of the petitioner was therefore one of adverse possession.

3. The Consolidation Officer (the CO) by his order dated 23.11.1981 dismissed the objection and directed that the petitioner's possession recorded during the portal, be expunged and the entry in favour of the contesting respondents be maintained.

4. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation (the SOC) by his order dated 22.2.1982 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The consequential revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed and the order of the CO was maintained. Hence this writ petition.

5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the SOC has rightly decided in favour of the petitioner relying upon the settlement entry of 1965 fasli. The SOC also relied upon the admission of the witnesses of the contesting respondents, who had admitted the petitioner's possession over the land in dispute. This admission had wrongly been ignored by the CO.

6. Elaborating further he has submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (the DDC) has reversed the appellate order only on the finding that the entry in the khasra was not made in accordance with law. The DDC had opined that the entries in the khatauni have greater evidentiary value as compared to the khasra entries and that the Registrar Kanoongo did not have jurisdiction to make entries of class-9 in the khatauni and he should have referred the matter to the Assistant Collector First Class, who alone was competent to make the entry. Notice under section P-10 should have been issued to the tenure-holder and that adverse possession apart from the entries has not been proved.

7. The submission therefore is that the settlement entries were liable to be accepted till such time they were to be proved, incorrect, in view of section 57 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The contesting respondents never adduced any documentary evidence to rebut the settlement entries. The only evidence adduced by them was the oral testimony, wherein the witnesses admitted the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the DDC is liable to be quashed.

8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Lal Behari v. Ram Adhar and others 1986 (12) ALR 4 , wherein it has been laid down that the settlement entries made after coming into force the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 would be presumed to be correct unless proved incorrect by the evidence adduced.

9. It has further been laid down that no such presumption is available as regards settlement entries made prior to the coming into force of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the possession of the petitioner was not adverse. He further submitted, that the mandatory provisions of the land record manual for recording adverse possession had not been followed and, therefore, the revision had been rightly allowed by the DDC and his order is liable to be affirmed.

11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 10.10.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 71280 of 2009 (Jeet Singh and others v. DDC and others).

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

13. The SOC allowed the objection of the petitioner r