# Faiz Mohammad v. Board Of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1233
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-20
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1981 of 1983
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/faiz-mohammad-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-at-allahabad-ors-52643
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Mr. H.N. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yadvendra
Pandey

Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(b) Whether the lease deed is valid?
(c) How has the defendant acquired the title in
the property?

Headnotes
A. Land Reform Law - Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950: Section 209; Limitation Act,
1963: Section 15 - Taken at its worst, the
period of limitation, since it has not expired
under the Act of 1956, would run for a period of
three years from the date of vesting under
Appendix I of Entry 31 of the Schedule to the
Act. The date of vesting is 01.07.1962 and three
years would expire on 30.06.1965. Adding to it
60 days statutory notice period necessary for
the maintainability of the suit u/s 15(2) of
the Act of 1963, the suit would be within
time up to 30.08.1965. The suit was instituted
on 05.08.1965. The opinion of the two Appellate
Courts below, holding the suit barred by time is,
therefore, manifestly illegal and cannot be
sustained. (Para 27)

In this case, it is apparent, from the finding of
the First Appellate Court, that until the year
1369 fasli, Devi Din was recorded as the
tenant, the plaintiff, Faiz Mohammad, as
the sub-tenant and Mansa Ram was
recorded as kabiz in the remarks column.
He was not recorded as kabiz davedar in
Column
No.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 50,785. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1233
appropriate rule or policy, governing the
payment of retirement pension and other
post retiral benefits, as they consider fit, to
be
borne
out
of
fund,
which
the
respondents themselves have to decide
upon, applicable to all employees of the
University. If and when such a rule or
policy is framed and the petitioner is
entitled under it, it would be open to him to
canvass his claim, subject to the event. The
petitioner shall be at liberty to claim
gratuity, if admissible, under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 1972 by approaching the
Controlling Authority under the said Act, in
such manner as advised.

33. This petition is decided in terms of
the aforesaid directions.

34. There shall be no order as to costs.

35. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Principal Secretary,
Higher Education, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand
University,
Bareilly, the Registrar, Mahatma Jyotiba
Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, the
Finance Officer, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule
Rohilkhand University, Bareilly and the
Regional Officer and Assistant Director, All
India Council of Technical Education,
Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1233
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ B No. 1981 of 1983

Faiz Mohammad ...Petitioner
Versus
Board Of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. D.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., Indra Pal Singh
Rajpoot

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. H.N. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Yadvendra
Pandey

Issues for consideration
 (a) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(b) Whether the lease deed is valid?
(c) How has the defendant acquired the title in
the property?

Headnotes
A. Land Reform Law - Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950: Section 209; Limitation Act,
1963: Section 15 - Taken at its worst, the
period of limitation, since it has not expired
under the Act of 1956, would run for a period of
three years from the date of vesting under
Appendix I of Entry 31 of the Schedule to the
Act. The date of vesting is 01.07.1962 and three
years would expire on 30.06.1965. Adding to it
60 days statutory notice period necessary for
the maintainability of the suit u/s 15(2) of
the Act of 1963, the suit would be within
time up to 30.08.1965. The suit was instituted
on 05.08.1965. The opinion of the two Appellate
Courts below, holding the suit barred by time is,
therefore, manifestly illegal and cannot be
sustained. (Para 27)

In this case, it is apparent, from the finding of
the First Appellate Court, that until the year
1369 fasli, Devi Din was recorded as the
tenant, the plaintiff, Faiz Mohammad, as
the sub-tenant and Mansa Ram was
recorded as kabiz in the remarks column.
He was not recorded as kabiz davedar in
Column
No.
6.
There
is
no
entry
apparently made in red ink as well,
pending inquiry into the defendant's title
by the Lekhpal, since the defendant's case
is one of acquisition of sub-tenancy from
the chief tenant through a lease deed
dated 08.11.1958. The Lekhpal has to
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
follow
the
procedure
prescribed
in
Paragraph No. 87(3) of the Land Records
Manual. Nothing of the kind appears to
have been done. There is no mention of a
red ink entry or inquiry by the Lekhpal
into the validity of a lease deed. Since the
defendant was entered in the remarks column
of 1369 fasli there is apparently no basis how he
came to be entered in 1371 fasli in Column No.
18 of the khasra, with his house recorded there.
(Para 25)

The other issues, which arise, are not
being dealt with, since the matter
would have to be remitted to the
Second
Appellate
Court
for
an
expeditious decision on merits, without
reference
to
the
issue
of
limitation.
Nevertheless, the validity of the lease deed
requires
careful
scrutiny
as
also
the
acquisition of the rights by the defendants,
in the light of the remarks carried in the
body of this judgment. (Para 28)

Writ petition partly allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Basdeo and others Vs. Board of Revenue and
others, AIR 1974 Allahabad 337 (V 61 C 83) Full
Bench; 1974 SCC OnLine All 136 (Para 22)
2. Chauthi Vs. D.D.C. and others, 2018 SCC
OnLine All 9061; (2018) 140 RD 650 (Para 23)
3. Uma Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Ballia
and others, 2013 SCC OnLine All 3763; (2013)
121 RD 842 (Para 24)

List of Acts
 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950; Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1956; Limitation Act, 1963.

List of Keywords: ejectment, land, tenant,
sub-tenant, zamindari, abolition, maintainability.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.P. Singh, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot
For Respondent(s): Mr. H.N. Singh, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Yadvendra Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition arises out of a suit
for ejectment instituted under Section 209
of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 19501.

2. The plaintiff is the writ petitioner.
The suit was decreed for ejectment against
the defendant-respondents, Mansa Ram and
Mohan Lal, sons of Bhagwan Das by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Hamirpur vide
judgment and decree dated 29.07.1970. The
defendants' appeal to the Commissioner,
Jhansi Division, Jhansi was allowed and the
suit dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 18.01.1972. The second appeal
carried by the plaintiff to the Board of
Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
07.02.1983,
affirming
the
Additional
Commissioner.

3. Aggrieved by the decree passed by
the
Board,
affirming
the
Additional
Commissioner, this writ petition has been
instituted by the plaintiff under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard Mr. D.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Indra Pal
Singh Rajpoot, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. H.N. Singh, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Mr.
Yadvendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the
respondents.

5. A suit for ejectment was instituted
by the original plaintiff, Faiz Mohammad
son of Gais Mohammad with a case that he
is the sirdar of Plot No. 1230/0.45, situate
in Mauza Rath, Pargana and Tahsil Rath,
District Hamirpur2. The defendants, Mansa
Ram and Mohan Lal, who are respondent
nos. 6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition
and now represented by their legal
representatives, have trespassed in the suit
11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1235
land from 1372 fasli and are not ready to
vacate it. The plaintiffs said that after
trespassing the said land, the defendants
have constructed a house for tethering
animals. On a part of the suit land,
agricultural equipments belonging to the
defendants are kept. The trespass done by
the defendants has caused the plaintiff a
loss of ₹300, but no decree for recovery of
the said damages has been sought. A notice
under Section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 19083 was served upon the State
and the Municipal Board, Rath. The
plaintiff has filed extracts of khatuani for
the year 1372-1374 fasli, showing entry of
sirdari rights in the plaintiff's favour,
relating to the suit land.

6. The defendants, Mansa Ram and
Mohan Lal, put in a written statement with
a case that the plaintiff is neither the sirdar
of the suit land, nor in possession. It is
averred that it is incorrect to say that the
defendants have trespassed from 1372 fasli.
It is the defendants' case that before the
abolition of zamindari, a certain Devi Din,
son of Ram Prasad, was the hereditary
tenant of the suit land and the plaintiff had
never been in possession. According to the
defendants, zamindari was abolished in the
local limits of the Municipal Board, Rath
on 01.07.1962. Devi Din had executed a
lease of the suit land on 11.08.1958 in
favour of Mansa Ram, one of the
defendants and delivered possession to
him. The defendant, Mansa Ram, had
constructed a pucca house and a temple on
the suit land in 1367 fasli. The construction
is not any kind of improvement, and that
the remaining land is appurtenant to the
house and the temple. It is the defendant's
further case that the suit land is not
agricultural in nature. The suit is not
cognisable by the Revenue Court. It is
barred by time. The defendant, being in
possession
before
the
abolition
of
zamindari, has acquired sirdari rights. So
far as defendant no. 7, Mohan Lal was
concerned, he had no claim to the suit land.
The plaintiff is not the recorded sirdar and
had never been a sub-tenant or adivasi.

7. The Trial Court framed the
following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiff is sirdar
of the land in suit?

2. Whether the defdts. No. 3 and
4 are trespassers and liable to ejectment ?

3. Whether the land in question is
occupied by houses and temple and is not
agricultural land, if so its effect?

4.
Whether
the
court
has
jurisdiction to try the case?

5. Whether the defendant No. 4 is
sirdar of the land in suit?

6. Whether the suit is within
time?

7. To what relief if any is the
plaintiff entitled ?

8. The plaintiff filed a copy of khasra
from 1359-1371 fasli and a copy khatauni
relating to 1357, 1368, 1369-71 and 137274 fasli. A copy of the register of deaths
from the Municipal Board, Rath has been
filed, showing Devi Din's death to have
happened on 06.09.1961. The defendantrespondents have filed an unregistered
lease dated 08.11.1958, engrossed on stamp
paper. Two receipts of 1374 fasli and 1376
fasli were also filed. The plaintiff examined
himself as a witness, besides another
witness, Jamuna Das. The defendant-
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent, Mansa Ram examined himself
and produced two other witnesses, Babu
Ram and Ram Swaroop.

9. The Trial Court decided Issue Nos.
1 and 5 together. It noticed that in the
khasra for 1366 fasli (1958 Anno Domini),
Devi Din was recorded as the chief tenant
and the plaintiff, Faiz Mohammad as the
sub-tenant, who had sown a crop of wheat
and gram over the entire area of the suit
land. The Trial Court has also noticed that
the plaintiff's possession commences on
record from 1359 fasli. In the khasra of
1367 fasli, again, Devi Din was shown as
the chief tenant and the plaintiff, Faiz
Mohammad, as the sub-tenant. The subtenant was indicated to have cultivated an
area of 0.43 acres, with 0.02 acres recorded
as parti. The defendant, Mansa Ram's
possession has been noticed to have
appeared for the first time in 1368 fasli
(1960 Anno Domini), where it appeared in
the remarks column, without reference of
the list P.A. 11, the serial number and date
of the diary.

10. There is then a very detailed
remark by the Trial Court regarding the
rights of parties, which must be quoted
verbatim :

The entry of Khasra 1368F is
very interesting. Devi Din is recorded
tennat in chief and Faiz Mohd. 1s recorded
as sub-tenant . The entire area is recorded
as sown with wheat and gram and at the
same time the ten year of Khasra is
recorded showing that the entire area was
sown as well as the entire area remained
parti Kadim 1 i.e. uncultivated. Either the
entry of cultivation is incorrect or the entry
of being fallow land. The possession of
Mansa Ram is recorded in remarks column
without reference of the list P.A.10, the
serial number of the diary and the date. The
entry in the Khatauni for this year 1368 F is
also very interesting wherein Debi Din in
recorded as tenant in chief. Sri Faiz Mohd.
is recorded Sub tenant in class 19 and Sri
Mansa Ram is recorded in class 20 as
occupant without consent. The entry of
either Sub-tenancy in favour of Sri Faiz
Mohd. is wrong or that of tenant without
consent in favour of Hansa Ram. These two
entries are not in accordance with the rules
prescribed in Land Records Manual. The
entry of Sub-tenancy is continuing from
1357F in favour of Faiz Mohd. In all
probability therefore, the entry in favour of
Mansa Ram in class 20 is frivolous and a
deliberate addition. This year of 1968 is the
start of entry in favour of Sri Mansa Ram.
The entry in Khasra remarks col. which
does not bear the serial no. of the P.A.10,
the serial no. of diary of Lekhpal and the
date of partal cannot be taken to be made in
course of discharge of duty by Le Lekhpal.
The entries in Khasra and Khatauni 1368 F
are fraudulent and cannot be believed to be
correct in favour of Sri Mansa Ram
defendant. The entry in 1369F also
indicates the name of Devi Din as tenant in
chief, Faiz Mohd. as Sub-tenant and Mansa
Ram occupant in remarks column. This
again does not bear the serial number of
P.A.10. Sl. No. of diary and date of Partal.
From 1370F no cultivation is recorded. For
the first time the entry of house over 0.03
acres and that of Mandir over 0.01 was
made in the year 1371F. In 1372F the area
of house was extended over 0.06 ores and
the Mandir on 0.01 acre.

In 1374 F the area of house
extended to 0.15acres and that of Mandir to
0.03 acres.

11. It is then remarked that the
plaintiff was recorded as a sub-tenant in the
11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1237
years
1372-74
fasli.
Zamindari
was
abolished in 1369 fasli or the calendar year
1961. The Trial Court found that the entry
of possession is corroborated by the
statement of the plaintiff and his witness,
Jamuna Das. The Trial Court, therefore,
held that the plaintiff, being a sub-tenant on
the date of vesting i.e. upon the date of
abolition of zamindari, became a sirdar. So
far as the defendants were concerned, it
was remarked by the Trial Court that they
relied on the sale deed executed by Devi
Din on 08.11.1958. It is remarked that a
lease deed of agricultural land is not
admissible
in
evidence
without
a
registration in accordance with law, though
it could be considered for collateral
purposes. It was also said that in the
absence of possession, it was infructuous.
In the opinion of the Trial Court, the
evidence adduced by the defendant was not
adequate to disprove the long-standing
entry of possession in the plaintiff's favour.

12. About limitation, it was remarked
by the Trial Court that the defendants'
possession was admitted with effect from
1372 fasli and the suit was filed on
05.08.1965.
The
year
1372
fasli
corresponds to the calendar year 1964. It
was also remarked that possession for the
defendants find support from documentary
evidence with effect from 1371 fasli, which
corresponds
to
1963
Anno
Domini.
Therefore, the suit was within time.

13. The Lower Appellate Court struck
a different note. It was opined that the
extract of khatauni of 1368 shows that Devi
Din was the recorded tenant of the suit land
and in Part 2 of the same khatauni, Mansa
Ram was recorded in Class 20, with a
duration of one year. The extract of khasra
of 1369 fasli (1961 Anno Domini) showed
Devi Din recorded as a tenant, Faiz
Mohammad, the plaintiff as the sub-tenant
and Mansa Ram as kabiz in the remarks
column. It is then observed that in the year
1370 fasli, corresponding to the calendar
year 1962, the land was not cultivated and
the house and the temple were recorded in
Column 18 of the khasra. The name of
Mansa Ram was also mentioned in the
same column. It is then said that the lease
deed executed by Devi Din on 08.11.1958
in Mansa Ram's favour was Ex.Kha.1. It
showed the nature of his possession. The
extract of khasra after 1374 fasli shows the
existence of the house and Mansa Ram's
temple and the further fact that the land
was still uncultivated. The First Appellate
Court took note of the testimony of Mansa
Ram, D.W.1 and Babu Ram, D.W.2 to
prove the defendants' possession. The
possession was held to be corroborated by
entry in the khasra of 1368 fasli.

14. There is then a remark that the
Lower Appellate Court was inclined to
believe that the defendants trespassed in
1368 fasli (1960 Anno Domini). The
period of limitation prescribed, to eject a
trespasser, when it began before abolition
of zamindari, was three years from the
date of vesting in the urban area. The date
of vesting was 01.07.1962 and the suit
was filed on 05.08.1965. On these close
working
out
of
dates,
the
Lower
Appellate Court held the suit barred by
time as well.

15. On an appeal from the appellate
decree being carried by the plaintiff to the
Board of Revenue, the Lower Appellate
Court has opined that the period of
statutory notice under Section 80 CPC,
that is to say, that the period of 60 days
has to be added to the period of limitation
under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act,
19634.
1238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Notice in this case was sent on
22.05.1965 and served on 23.07.1965. The
Second Appellate Court held that the
limitation of three years under the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 19565 extended by
two months notice period would expire on
30.08.1965,
and
the
suit
filed
on
05.08.1965 would be within limitation. But,
the opinion on the point has turned against
the plaintiff, with the Second Appellate
Court reasoning that it had been held by the
First Appellate Court that limitation started
in 1366 fasli, which expired during time
that The United Provinces Tenancy Act,
19396 applied and before the Act of 1956
came into force. The consequence was that
the defendants acquired hereditary rights
and the suit would not be within time,
because three years limitation under the
Act of 1956 would be applicable for
possession prior to coming into force of the
Act of 1956, if limitation subsisted;
otherwise not.

17. So far as the merits of the case
were concerned, the Lower Appellate Court
looked into the evidence of parties and
opined that the testimony of P.W.1, that he
had acquired the suit land from Devi Din,
the chief tenant, 40 years ago is not
corroborated by entries in the revenue
records. It was also held that his testimony
was also not corroborated by any other oral
evidence about the fact. His evidence was
condemned as highly self-contradictory and
unreliable, because he said that no rent was
fixed and he would pay by tendering half of
the produce sometimes, and, at others, pay
rent in cash. It was also remarked that for
all these payments of rent in cash and kind,
no corroborative evidence was produced,
although the plaintiff named three persons
to have witnessed payments of rent, two of
whom were still alive. It was also remarked
that payment of rent, both in kind and cash,
was self-contradictory and did not inspire
confidence about a sub-tenancy for the
plaintiff. It was also said by the Second
Appellate Court that a mere entry in the
plaintiff's favour without evidence of
acquisition
of
the
right
and
selfcontradictory testimony about payment of
rent could not be believed. It was held that
the Lower Appellate Court rightly did not
believe the plaintiff's case of being a subtenant. The Second Appellate Court further
opined
that
the
testimony
of
the
defendants' witnesses was worthy of
reliance and proved the lease Ex.Kha-1,
which was also said to be proved by
D.W.3. The lease was held admissible in
evidence,
requiring
no
registration,
contrary to the opinion of the Trial Court
that it was not admissible. The chief tenant,
Devi Din, was held to be an occupancy
tenant of the suit land according to the
khatauni of 1368 fasli, who had the right of
letting the plot. He had the right of
transferring it too. It was also noticed that
in
the
khatauni,
the
plaintiff,
Faiz
Mohammad was recorded in Class 19,
whereas, Mansa Ram, the defendant, in
Class 20 over the suit land, as evident from
the extract of the khasra for the fasli year
1368. It has specifically been remarked by
the Second Appellate Court that the copy of
extract of khasra of 1368 fasli showed the
defendant in possession of the suit land in
the remarks column, although it does not
contain any date and diary number, and
notice
for
issuing
P.A.10.
It
is,
nevertheless, said that the existence of the
defendant's house and temple in the suit
land since 1366 fasli, coupled with the
lease by the then chief tenant, was worthy
of reliance. It was also remarked by the
Second Appellate Court that the defendant
is in possession of the suit land since 1366
fasli and limitation expired in 1369 fasli.
11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1239
The defendant had already become a
hereditary tenant of the suit land before the
Act of 1956 came into force. It was on this
basis opined that the suit was not within
time and rightly dismissed by the Lower
Appellate Court.

18. There is also a remark that there
was no requirement of issuing P-10 for
subsequent years and the entry in the
defendant's favour continued in subsequent
fasli years. His possession is proved since
1366
fasli,
whereas,
the
plaintiff's
possession was not proved since he failed
to establish his sub-tenancy. His right, on
the basis of entries, showing him to be in
possession without paying rent, failed to
establish the fact of sub-tenancy in his
favour. It was in this view of the matter that
the Second Appellate Court affirmed the
First Appellate Court's judgment.

19. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
parties and perusing the record, what we
find is that the finding recorded by the
Second Appellate Court, that the defendant
was in possession since 1366 fasli or
established to be so, suffers from an error
apparent. This would be evident from a
reference to the findings on the point
recorded by the First Appellate Court,
which reads :

4. The extract of Khatauni of
1368 F shows that Devi Din was a recorded
tenant of the plot in dispute and in part 2 of
the same Khatauni Mansa Ram defendant
appellant was recorded in Ziman 20 with a
duration of one year. The extract of Khasra
of 1369 F slows that Devi Din was
recorded tenant, Faiz Mohd. was sub-tenant
and Mansa Ram was recorded as Kabiz in
the remarks column. In 1370 F the land was
not cultivated. In 1371 F the land was not
cultivated and the house and temple were
recorded in Col. 18 of the Khasra. The
name of Mansa Ram Was also mentioned
in the same column. The defendant
appellants have also filed the lease Ex. Kha
1 which was executed by Devi Din on
8.11.68 in favour of Mansa Ram. It shows
the nature of possession of the defendant.
The extract of Khasra of 1374 F proves that
the house and the temple of Mansa Ram
were in existence and the land was still
uncultivated. There is oral avidance of
D.W. 1 Mansa Ram and D.W. 2 Babu Ram
to prove possession of the defendant. The
possession
of
the
defendant
finds
corroboration from the above mentioned
Khasras as well as the Khasra of 1368F. I
am, therefore, inclined to believe the
defendant's version that the land in dispute
was trespassed by the defendants in 1368F.
The period of limitation prescribed to file
the suit to eject a trespasser in a case when
the trespass began before the abolition of
Zamindari is three years from the date of
vesting in the Urban Area. The date of
vesting is 1.7.62 and the suit was filed on
5.8.65 as such the suit was clearly barred
by limitation. The oral evidence of P.W.1
Faiz Mohd. and P.W.2 Jamuna Das do not
inspire confidence in view of the above
discussion. Under these circumstances I am
unable to unhold the findings of the lower
court. The plaintiff is not the Sirdar of the
land in suit and he is not entitled to get the
decree for ejectment.

20. It would be noticed that the finding
of the Second Appellate Court based upon
entries in the khasra, that have been filed,
clearly
shows
that
accepting
the
defendant's case, the Court held that the
suit land was trespassed by the defendant in
1368 fasli. This works out to the calendar
year 1960-61. There was never a case about
the defendant being recorded in the year
1366 fasli, as held by the Second Appellate
1240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. There is neither evidence to that
effect, nor finding by the First Appellate
Court, which is the last Court of fact. The
inference, therefore, that the defendant was
recorded in the fasli year 1366 is the result
of an error apparent.

21. To the contrary, what is noticeable
is that the defendant, Mansa Ram, in the
year 1369 fasli, was shown recorded in the
remarks column as kabiz, whereas, the
chief tenant in the fasli year was Devi Din
and the plaintiff, Faiz Mohammad, the subtenant. In the earlier fasli year 1368 also,
Mansa Ram, the defendant was recorded in
Class 20, which would be an entry in the
remarks column. No right accrues on the
basis of an entry in the remarks column in
favour of an occupant, unless an inquiry is
made by the Lekhpal regarding rights of the
person found in occupation during partal,
traceable to lawful acquisition of title of
some kind. The inquiry and the entry has to
be made following the procedure detailed
in the Land Records Manual.

22. The law on the point on how
entries of the holders of various rights, who
have hitherto not been recorded and appear
on the basis of the Lekhpal's partal in the
remarks column have to be made in the
khasra, has been authoritatively laid down
by a Full Bench of this Court in Basdeo
and others v. Board of Revenue and
others7. It would be of much profit to refer
to the following detailed exposition of the
law in Basdeo (supra) :

14. Sec. 234 of the Land Revenue
Act conferred rule making power upon the
Local Government. Its clause (d), inter alia,
provided for prescribing the form, contents,
method of preparation etc. and maintenance
of the record of rights anti other records,
maps, field books, register and lists made
or kept under the Act. The Land Records
Manual is a collection of rules framed
under Sec. 234 of the Land Revenue Act,
as well as instructions issued by the State
Government in relation to various matters.
Chapter V of Part I of the Manual relates to
the map and Khasra. Chapter VIII deals
with the Khatauni. The preface to the
Manual shows that Chapter III to XI to Part
I of the Manual have been framed under
clause (d) of Sec. 234 of the land Revenue
Act. So the rules contained in Chapters V
and VIII of the Manual are statutory rules
made under Sec. 234. Chapter V dealing,
inter
alia,
with
Khasra
consists
of
paragraphs 55 to 102. Chapter VIII relates
to Khatauni and consists of paragraphs 121
to 160. Paragraph 60 provides that Khasra
shall be prepared in Form No. P. 3. Form
No. P. 3 consists of 21 columns. Column
No. 5 is meant for the name of the
cultivator. In column No. 6 are to be
entered the names of sub-tenants or tenants
of sir, or tenants of permanent tenureholders or rent free grantee, or grantees at a
favourable rate of rent or occupiers of land
without the consent of the persons entitled
to admit such, subtenants. Column No. 21
is the remarks column. Paragraph 71
provides for the entry in column No. 5. In it
not only the name of the cultivator but also
the "nature of his rights" i.e., the class of
his tenure and, where necessary, the term of
cultivation, have to be entered. These
entries are to be made in accordance with
paragraphs 72 to 86, 124 and 124-A and
126 to 129, as the case may be. Paragraphs
124 to 129 are in Chapter VIII dealing with
Khatauni. Paragraphs 78 and 79 deal with
cultivation of thekedars and mortgagees.
Paragraph 79 provides-

"When a permanent tenure-holder
or a fixed-rate tenant has mortgaged his
holding with possession, or a grove-holder,
11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1241
the interest in his grove-land, the word
"mortgagor" shall be entered in column 5
after the class of tenant, or the groveholder, as the case may be. The name and
description of the mortgagee shall then be
entered in the same column followed by the
word 'mortgagee.' If any other tenant has
mortgaged his holding the name and
description of the mortgagee will not be
entered in column 5 but in the column of
remarks followed by the word 'mortgagee'.
If the mortgagee has let out the field to a
cultivator, the name of the actual cultivator
should be shown in column 6. Mortgagees
without possession shall not be shown
anywhere in the khasra.

Note:-The record of mortgage in
the remarks column of Khasra is intended
to show the fact of possession. It is no
recognition of an illegal transaction."

15. Paragraph 124 provides for
the arrangement of holdings in the
Khatauni in Agra, while paragraph 124-A
deals with arrangement of land in the
Khatauni in Avadh. A persual of paragraph
124 shows that it divides land into 20
classes, depending on the nature of the
rights possessed by the cultivator. Class (1)
is of Sir of landlords. Class (2) deals with
Khudkasht. Class (2-A) relates to the
kedars or mortgagees' cultivation. Classes
(3) to (9) refer to different kinds of tenants.
Class (10) relates to land held by nonoccupancy tenants. Class (10-A) provides-

"(10-A)
Occupiers
of
land
without title when there is no one already
recorded in column 5 of the Khasra.

Note: - When no rent has been
fixed and any person has been admitted to
the occupation of land or permitted to
retain possession of land by any one having
a right to admit or permit him, with the
intention that a contract of tenancy should
thereby be effected, he is a hereditary
tenant and his proper place is under class
(8). But before any person who claims to be
a tenant of this description is entered as
hereditary tenant, the Patwari shall record
the statement of the Zamindar and such
person in his diary and obtain their
signatures and make the entry under class
(8) only if the case is undisputed. If the
Zamindar denies admission to tenancy or
recognition of such person as tenant, such
person shall be entered under class (10-A)".

Class (11) consists of rent free
grantees, while class (12) deals with groveholders. Class (16) is of tenants under
permanent tenure-hoders. Class (17) is of
tenants of sir and tenants of Khudkasht.
Class (18) deals with tenants under rent
free grantees. Class (18-A) is of lessees
under Sec. 252, U.P. Tenancy Act.

16. Class (19) is of sub-tenants
while class (20) is-

"(20) Occupiers of Land without
the consent of the person if any entered in
column 5 of the Khasra.

Notes- (1) When no rent has been
fixed and any person has been admitted to
the occupation of land or permitted to
retain possession of land by a tenant, with
the intention that a contract of sub-tenancy
should thereby be effected, he is a
subtenant and his proper place is under
class (19). But before any person, who
claims to be a sub-tenant by virtue of such
admission without rent or recognition as
sub-tenant is entered as sub-tenant, the
Patwari shall record the statements of the
tenant and such person in his diary and
obtain their signatures and make the entry
1242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in class (19) only if the case is undisputed.
If the tenancy or recognition of such person
as sub-tenant, such person shall be entered
under class (20).

(2)
The
above
classification
applies to the whole of the Agra Province
except the areas specified in the First
Schedule of the Land Revenue Act, 1901."

19. It will be seen that there is
detailed provision for specifying the nature
of the tenure under which a person is
cultivating. The classification includes
"occupiers of land". Classes (10-A) and
(20) deal with them. In the context of this
classification it is apparent that the
occupiers of land mentioned in classes (10A) and (20) are those who are not the
holders of any recognised tenure. Such
occupiers of land without title are recorded
in the khasra in column 6.

20. Under Paragraph 84 of the
Manual if the lekhpal finds that a person
whose name has not been previously
recorded is in cultivatory possession and
someone else is recorded in column No. 5
he shall enquire how such person has
obtained possession. If he finds that such
person is a usufructuary mortgagee of the
holding or sajhidar of the person recorded
in column 5, he will follow the procedure
laid down in paragraphs 79 and 83. If he
finds that the person recorded in column 5
has died and such person is his heir, he will
take steps to enter the heir's name in
column 5, according to the procedure laid
down in Paragraph 82. If the lekhpal finds
that such person holds a sub-lease from the
person recorded in column 5, he will follow
the procedure laid down in paragraph
87(3). If the Lekhpal finds that such person
does not fall in any of the classes
mentioned above and the person recorded
in column 5 belongs to class (10) or (10-A)
in Agra, and in Avadh to class (5) or (5-A)
of
the
Khatauni,
the
Lekhpal
shall
substitute for the recorded person the name
of the actual occupier in column 5 in red
ink. If the person recorded in column 5 is a
tenant of any class other than these or is a
grove-holder or a grantee under class (11)
in Agra or class (6) in Avadh, the Lekhpal
shall follow the procedure laid down in
paragraphs (b) to (d) given below that
Paragraph.

21. Paragraphs (b) to (d) give
detailed procedure for enquiring and
making of an entry. The entries are made in
red ink with "Dawedar Qabiz" added. The
entry is made in the remarks column only
provisionally and pending the completion
of the enquiry.

24. It will thus be seen that where
no one is entered in column 6, a person
claiming to be in cultivatory occupation
without the consent of the person whose
name is entered in column 5 has to be
entered in column 6 in red ink and his
status has also to be entered in that column.
If such person claims to be a tenant of the
kind mentioned in classes (a) to (d) of subparagraph (i) and if the Lekhpal is not
satisfied that he belongs to one of those
classes, he will be recorded as an occupier
belonging to Class (e), and pending such
enquiry his name is to be noted in the
remarks column of the Khasra. Obviously if
after the enquiry the lekhpal is satisfied that
he is a tenant mentioned in Class (a), (b), (c)
or (d) he will be mentioned as such in column
6, otherwise his name shall be entered in
column 6 in red ink together with his status,
that is, as "Occupier of the land".

25.
Sub-paragraph
(iv)
of
Paragraph 87 provides for a case where an
11 All. Faiz Mohammad Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad & Ors.
1243
entry already exists in column 6 of the
Khasra and the Lekhpal finds at his partal
that some person other than the recorded
person is in cultivatory occupation of the
land, Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-paragraph
(iv) give detailed instructions with regard
to various contingent es which may arise.
Clause (d) deals with the situation where
the occupier claims to be recorded in
column 6 to the exclusion of the recorded
person. In that case the Lekhpal has to
proceed as follows: -

(i) If the recorded person belongs
to Class (b), (d) or (e) of sub-paragraph (i),
the lekhpal will substitute the name of the
actual occupier in place of the name of the
recorded person but he shall not enter the
new name in Class (b) or Class (d) unless
the conditions laid down in the proviso to
sub-paragraph (iii) are fulfilled. If he finds
that a contractual relationship has not
arisen between the occupier and the person
entitled to sub-let, he will treat the occupier
as belonging to Class (e).

(ii) If the recorded person belongs
to Class (a) or (c) of sub-paragraph (i), the
lekhpal shall provisionally enter in red ink
the name of the actual occupier in the
remarks column of the khasra and shall
proceed, as far as possible, as laid down in
sub-paragraphs (b) to (d) of paragraph 84,
provided that in a case falling under Class
(d) the name and other particulars of the
actual occupier with the words "Qabiz
Dawedar" shall be entered below the name
and other particulars of the person already
recorded in column 6".

26. Thus the Lekhpal has to make
an
enquiry
whether
a
contractual
relationship of land-holder and tenant arises
between
the
person
in
cultivatory
occupation and the person entered in
column 5. If he is not so satisfied, then the
person in cultivatory occupation is to be
entered in column 6 in red ink, and in cases
covered by clause (ii) of sub-paragraph
(iv)(d), with the words "Kabiz Dawedar"
added.

27. It is evident that the Land
Records Manual gives detailed instructions
to the Lekhpal as to how and when is he to
record the person as occupier of land.
Reading paragraphs 79, 84 and 87 together
it is evident that the Lekhpal is to enter the
unufructuary mortgagee of an occupancy
tenant in the remarks column with the word
"mortgagee" added. If he finds that a
person is an occupier of land without
consent, he is to be entered in column 6 in
red ink and in some cases with the words
"Kabiz Dawedar" added. The Lekhpal is
not authorised to record the name of an
"occupier" in the remarks column as a
mortgagee.

23. In the context of acquisition of
adivasi rights, it was held by this Court in
Chauthi v. D.D.C. and others8 :

31. It is evident from the extracts
of different judgements reproduced above
that a person can claim Adhivasi Rights on
the basis of entries in the revenue records
(Khasra/Khatauni) relating to 1356 Fasli
only if he is recorded as an occupant in the
aforesaid document in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in the Manual. A
reading of paragraph 87 of the Manual
shows that the name of occupier has to be
recorded in red-ink in Column 6 after due
enquiry by the Lekhpal, who shall satisfy
himself as to the person in occupation of
the land as well as the nature of the
occupation before recording the said person
as Kabiz/Sajhi etc. in red ink. The said
enquiry would be occasioned if during
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
partal the Lekhpal finds some person in
cultivatory occupation and there was no
entry in Column 6 of the Khasra in
preceding years or there is some other
person in occupation. It is also evident
from the observations of Supreme Court in
Smt. Somwati (Supra) that the entry of the
occupant in 'remarks' Column would not
confer any right on the alleged occupant.
As pointed out by the Full Bench of this
court in Basdeo (Supra) that entries
regarding status of the occupant in
'remarks' Column of the Khasra are only
provisional
pending
enquiry
by
the
Lekhpal, who after completing the enquiry,
shall record the status of the occupier in red
ink in Column 6 of the Khasra. Reading
Smt. Somwati (Supra) with Basdeo (supra),
it is evident that so far as Khasra is
concerned, only an entry in Column 6
regarding the status of the occupant would
be relevant to decide the claim of Adhivasi
rights under Section 20 of the Act, 1950.
As a corollary, any order or judgement of
any Court or authority accepting the plea of
any person regarding his Adhivasi rights
over any land and derived from entries in
the revenue records of 1356 Fasli, has to
record the nature of entries, the Column in
which the claimant is recorded, the primafacie satisfaction of the Court that the
entries were not fictitious and the record
had been prepared after following the
procedure prescribed in the Manual, i.e.
after due enquiry by the concerned Lekhpal
or any other revenue officer. Failure of the
concerned Court or authority to do so
would
only
disclose
a
casual
and
mechanical approach and a non-application
of mind on the part of the concerned Court
or authority exposing it to interference by a
Superior Court or authority.

24. To like effect is the holding of our
Court in Uma v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation Ballia and others9, where it
has been opined :

9. The case of the petitioner is
that Ganesh was recorded occupant in
khasra 1356 F. Section 28 of U.P.