JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. This case is arising out of consolidation proceedings of village Ratanpur Rai, Tappa Puraina, Tehsil Haraiya, District Basti.

2. The case of original petitioner (Mata Din Singh (since deceased)) was that in the basic year, name of Jairaj Singh (his father) and Ram Nihal Singh were recorded as tenure holders, whereas name of Rambadan Singh (since deceased and predecessors of original respondent nos. 4 to 7) was recorded in Clause (9) of revenue records.

3. Predecessors of contesting respondents have claimed sirdar rights on basis of their alleged continuous possession of more than 25 years.

4. During proceedings, witnesses were examined from both sides. From the side of petitioner, objector has examined himself whereas contesting respondent did not appeared before Authority and one Ramjanam Singh appeared being a mukhtare-khas of respondent Rambadan Singh and another witness Anshuman Singh also appeared for respondent. Certain revenue records were also placed by both the parties.

5. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 24.01.1978 has rejected the objections of petitioner and allowed the objections filed on behalf of contesting respondents and their names were directed to be entered into revenue records as sirdar. The relevant findings of the Consolidation Officer are as follows:

6. The petitioner and others filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, same was dismissed by an order dated 18.02.1982. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

7. Both the above referred orders were challenged by petitioner before Deputy Director of Consolidation by way of filing a revision petition, however, same was also dismissed by an order dated 09.02.1983 and relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter:

8. Above referred orders dated 24.01.1978, 18.02.1982 and 09.02.1983 are impugned in this writ petition.

9. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar, Advocate appearing for petitioners has submitted that undisputedly original petitioner was tenure holder and contesting respondents were in unauthorized possession of land in dispute and their names being mutated on basis of such nature of possession which would not create any substantive right in their favour. There was a finding of Consolidation Officer that according to revenue records, even in some of years, respondents were not in possession over the land in dispute as well as the Consolidation Officer has recorded a finding that respondents’ possession was proved upto 10 years only and only on surmises, it was held that they were in possession for 12 years, therefore, all three Authorities have erroneously accepted the argument of respondents that they have perfected their rights on basis of alleged unopposed possession of twelve years over the land in dispute.

10. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that evidence given by mukhtar-khas was not acceptable and that entries were not made in terms of provisions of U.P. Land Records Manual (for short “the Manual”).

11. In order to buttress the arguments, he has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court and this Court in Hemaji Waghaji Jat vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others, AIR 2009 SC 103, Vidhyadhar vs. Manik Rao and Others, (1999) 3 SCC 573, Smt. Bitiya Bano vs. DDC, 1979 SCC Online All. 502 : 1980 RD 190, Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another vs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and Others, AIR 2005 SC 439 : (2005) 2 SCC 217, Gaya Prasad vs. Nathu Singh and Others, 2019 (4) AWC 3600, Sunehri Lal vs. Smt. Premwati, 2015 All. C.J. 738, Ganga Ram and Others vs. DDC and Another, 1982 RD 1.

12. Per contra, Sri Anil Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate appearing for respondents has referred provisions of Clause (9) of Part-II of Para A-124 of the Manual, which states that:

“Occupiers of land without the consent o