JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri M.K. Rajvanshi, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ayub Khan Advocate for the contesting respondents.
2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 218 consisting of plot Nos. 31, 36, 237, 407 and 436 of village Ikbara, Pargana Hastinapur, District Meerut. According to the facts disclosed in the writ petition, in the basic year Khatauni, the name of contesting respondent No. 2 was recorded in column No. 8 and the name of Chhatra, father of the petitioner was found to be in possession over the said plot. During the consolidation operation, the petitioners filed objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that they were in possession since last more than 18 years. Counter objection was filed by the respondents denying the claim of the petitioners. The contesting respondents claimed that Chhatra, father of the petitioners was their servant and therefore, he can not claim any right on the basis of his possession. He used to plough fields on behalf of the contesting respondents but not as the owner in possession, only in capacity of a servant and, therefore, his name should be expunged. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection vide order dated 29.1.l977 which was challenged in appeal. The appeal was remanded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation with a direction that the statement of the witnesses be recorded on the question of land revenue receipts and also thumb impression of Chhatra appended on the registered sale deed alleged to be executed by him in favour of other persons, which was liable to be examined. The respondents challenged the order in revision which was dismissed. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of Chhatra and came to a conclusion that he was the exclusive Bhiumidhar of the plots in dispute vide order dated 20.9.1979. The respondents went up in appeal which stood dismissed vide order dated 28.11.1980. The revision preferred by the contesting respondents was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 25.1.1982.
3. The claim of the petitioners is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation illegally came to the conclusion that the father of the petitioners was a servant and he cultivated the land in the said capacity. The entries held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to be wrongly made in column No. 20 of the Khatauni is also without any basis. Once the entry has been made in column No. 8 of the Khatauni, they acquired a valid right of Adhiwasi and on advent of the Zamindari Abolition Act, he acquired Sirdari rights. The receipts were also disputed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly shifted the burden on the petitioners and therefore, his order is liable to be quashed.
4. Counsel for the contesting respondents has disputed each and every arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. His contention is that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation completely ignored the evidence on record such as irrigation receipt pertaining to 1382 Fash to 1383 Fasli and 1378 Fasli to 1382 Fasli. All these receipts were admittedly in the name of Mohd. Anis and, therefore, no right could be given to Chhatra, who was nothing more than a servant. The entries in the revenue records of late Chhatra was without any order or permission of the recorded tenure holder and in these circumstances, a heavy burden lay on the shoulders of the petitioners to establish then right of adverse possession. The petitioners had never challenged and claimed possession prior to the consolidation proceedings come into force and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly come to a conclusion while discarding the case of the petitioners.
5. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the orders. The entire foundation of the petitioner's case is on the basis of adverse possession. It was the duty of the petitioners to establish that P.A.-10 was prepared and served upon the recorded tenure holders. A presumption of the correctness of the entries could be arrived at only if it is made in accordance with relevant provision of Land Records Manual and also where a person claiming adverse possession has to establish that he had not received P. A.-10 and he had no knowledge of the entries, due notice in prescribed Form P.A.-10 is essential. In the case of Tiryan v. Bhagwat Prasad 1974 R.D. 268, it was held that to avail a right on the basis of adverse possession, it is for the defendant to prove that he has extinguished the right of the plaintiff being in continuous possession. Similar view was expressed in the case of Gurmukh Singh and Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Nainital and Ors. 1997 (V. 88) R.D., 276. In another case Jamuna Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Agra and Ors. 1981 R.D., 112, the court had repelled the contention that the burden of proof was upon the person who challenges the correctness of the entries. It can not be said that the presumption of correctness of the entries in the revenue records are to the detriment of the plaintiff, therefore an onus lay upon the respondent to prove that the entries showing the petitioner's possession had not been in accordance with law. In the case of Sadhn Saran and Anr. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and Ors. 2003(94) RD, 535, it was held that in case the authorities have not come to conclusion that P.A.-10 was issued or not, it was held that the entry of Clause-9 and the same was made without any order of the competent authority. In another case Mahadeo v. Joint Director of Consolidation and Ors. 2006 (100) R.D. 778, it was held that adverse possession contemplates not only continuity of the possession as against the true owner but also that the true owner had full knowledge that person in possession was in hostile possession entitling him to claim title on the basis of the said possession. The petitioner has not been able to establish that the entry recorded in 'VARG 20" is conclusive, specially in absence of any order by a competent authority. The petitioner at no stage claimed his right either prior or subsequent to the abolition of Zamindari. The heirs of Chattar came forward with an objection only when consolidation operation commenced. In absence of any cogent and valid evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to any right on the basis of adverse possession.
6. In the instant case, the respondents have come forward with the case that Chhatra was a servant and cultivating the land on behalf of the respondents. Besides the various receipts and revenue entries also do not entitle the petitioners for the benefit of adverse possession.
7. In the circumstances, no good ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.