# Amrawati v. D.D.C. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1078
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-27
- **Bench:** Ram Surat Ram (Maurya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amrawati-v-d-d-c-ors-43966
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,871 of 44,335. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39871 for what follows._

1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail
application of applicant Iqbal in case crime no.378 of 2015, under sections 364-A and 120B IPC, PS. Mussoorie, District Ghaziabad, is rejected accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J.

Writ B No.- 26245 Of 2016

Amrawati ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Arvind Srivastava, Mahesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, Gajendra Pratap

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 5(2), 9, 9-A(2), 48; U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) - Sections 20(b), 20(b)(ii), 229-B; U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 28, 33, 35, 39, 40, 40-A, 44, 54, 54(8)(b), 57; U.P. Land
Record Manual - Paragraph 87, Column 5 and Column 6 of Khasra; U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Appendix III, Entry 39-B; U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1961
(U.P. Act No. X of 1961); U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954).

1. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 20(b)(ii) - 'Recorded
Occupant' - Technical Significance - Entry Must be Made in Column 6 of Khasra - Entry in
Remarks Column of Khasra 1359 F Insufficient - No Sirdari Right Accrues.
The phrase 'recorded as occupant' in Section 20(b)(ii) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 carries a technical significance. As authoritatively determined by a Full Bench of five Judges in Basdeo v.
Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1974 All 337 (FB), approved by the Supreme Court in Chandrika Prasad v. Pullo,
(2000) 4 SCC 227, before any entry in the khasra or khatauni can be treated as a record of an 'occupant', two
conditions must be fulfilled: (i) the entry must be established to have been made in accordance with the
provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and the U.P. Land Record Manual governing the making of
occupancy entries; and (ii) the entry must be genuine and not fictitious. Under the U.P. Land Record Manual,
the relevant entry for recording the name of an occupant must appear in Column 6 of the khasra, which is the
column prescribed for recording sub-tenants or occupiers. An entry made merely in the remark column
(Column 5) of the khasra, recording the name of a person as a cultivator, does not constitute a record of an
'occupant' for the purposes of Section 20(b) of the Act. In the present case, the name of Ram Surat appeared
only in the remark column of Khasra 1359 F and not in Column 6; further, no evidence was adduced to show
that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in Khasra 1356 F. Held: Ram Surat cannot be treated as a 'recorded
occupant' under Section 20(b) and no sirdari right accrued in his favour on the basis of Khasra 1359 F alone.
7 All. Amrawati Vs D.D.C. & Ors.
1079
2. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Jurisdiction of Tahsildar - Mutation in Khatauni - Permissible
Only in Cases of Transfer or Succession - Order Directing Mutation of Name Without Proof of
Transfer or Succession - Without Jurisdiction - Nullity.
Under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, a Tahsildar has jurisdiction to mutate the name of a
person in the khatauni only in cases of transfer or succession. He has no jurisdiction to delete the name of a
recorded tenure-holder and substitute another name in the khatauni in the absence of proof of a valid transfer
or succession. As held by the Supreme Court in Jagdeo Singh v. Mithailal, AIR 1981 SC 1005, the Tahsildar
cannot record the name of any person in the khatauni except in cases of transfer or succession. In the
present case, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish that the land in dispute was transferred
by Mewa to Ram Surat or that Ram Surat was the heir of Mewa. Accordingly, the alleged order of the
Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955, directing the mutation of the name of Ram Surat over the land of Mewa, was
passed without jurisdiction and the consequent entry in Khatauni 1363 F-1365 F, was found to be a fabricated
entry. Held: An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and is void ab initio. The U.P. Land Laws
Amendment Act, 1961 (U.P. Act No. X of 1961) validated genuine orders only and cannot be invoked to
validate forged or fabricated entries.

3. Revenue Records - Presumption of Correctness - Limitation of Presumption - Does Not Apply
to Forged or Fraudulent Entries - Fraud and Forgery Rob Entry of All Legal Effect - Possessory
Title Cannot be Founded on Forged Entry.
Entries in revenue records ordinarily carry a presumption of correctness under Sections 44 and 57 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901, and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness.
However, this presumption of correctness attaches only to genuine entries and has no application to entries
that are forged or fraudulent. The distinction is well-settled: one cannot challenge the correctness of what a
genuine entry records, but an entry is always open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or
surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery deprive a document of all its legal efficacy and a claim to possessory title
cannot be founded upon a forged or fraudulent entry in the revenue record. A long-standing entry in revenue
records holds only presumptory value and does not constitute absolute proof of title. Relied upon: Vishwa
Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR 1976 SC 1485; Wali Mohammad v. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296; Shri
Ram v. DDC & Others, 2011 (4) ADJ 289 (DB).

4. Revenue Records - Mutation - Does Not Create or Extinguish Title - No Presumptive Value on
Title - Entry in Revenue Record Not Conclusive Proof of Title.
It is well-established that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor
does it carry any presumptive value on the question of title. The only effect of a mutation order is to enable
the person in whose favour mutation is made to pay the land revenue in respect of the property. An entry in
the revenue record alone is not sufficient as conclusive proof of title and cannot be relied upon as establishing
title in a party. Further, orders passed by revenue courts in proceedings relating to mutation and correction
under Sections 33, 35, 39, 40 and 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 can always be challenged in a suit
and do not operate as res judicata under Sections 40-A and 54(8)(b) of that Act. For filing a suit for
declaration of right under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, no period of limitation is prescribed vide
Entry 39-B of Appendix III of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

5. Jurisdiction - Void Order - Nullity - Can be Disregarded in Collateral Proceedings - No
Declaration Necessary Where Order is Ab Initio Void - Distinction Between Void and Voidable
Orders.
A decree or order passed by a court or authority without jurisdiction is a nullity; it is void ab initio and can be
disregarded even in collateral proceedings without the necessity of a formal declaration setting it aside. A
defect of jurisdiction - whether pecuniary, territorial, or relating to subject-matter - strikes at the very
authority of the court or tribunal to act, and such a defect cannot be cured even by the consent of the parties.
A distinction must, however, be maintained between void and voidable orders: a wholly void order, being one
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

passed without jurisdiction, is a nullity in the eye of law and principles of res judicata do not apply to it. A
voidable order, on the other hand, is good until avoided and must be set aside in appropriate proceedings.
Where the initial entry in the revenue record in favour of a party was itself not a genuine entry - having been
forged and fabricated - the party cannot claim any legal right or title founded upon such an entry. Relied
upon: Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340; Govt. of Orissa v. Ashok Transport Agency, (2002) 9
SCC 28; Union of India v. Assn. of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, (2011) 10 SCC 543.

6. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) - Title Proceedings - Writ
Jurisdiction - Findings of Fact by Consolidation Authorities - Non-Interference - Scope of
Judicial Review Limited.
In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not reappreciate findings of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities on the basis of evidence adduced before
them. Where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement
Officer Consolidation, and the Deputy Director of Consolidation - to the effect that Smt. Parwati Devi is the
daughter and heir of Mewa and was in possession of the land in dispute, and that the entry of the name of
Ram Surat in the khatauni was a fabricated entry - and such findings are supported by evidence on record,
they are not open to re-appreciation or interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. Once both parties
have led their evidence, the question of burden of proof becomes largely academic and the dispute falls to be
decided on the totality of evidence. Held: Writ petition dismissed. Concurrent findings of facts upheld.

Result: Writ petition dismissed. The orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 31.01.2011,
Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 02.06.2011, and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
14.07.2015, directing deletion of the name of Ram Surat from the land in dispute and recording
the names of Smt. Parwati Devi and Banarasi as heirs of Mewa, upheld.

Cases Referred:

1. Basdeo v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1974 All 337 (FB) - Applied.
2. Chandrika Prasad v. Pullo, (2000) 4 SCC 227 - Applied.
3. Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR 1976 SC 1485 - Applied.
4. Wali Mohammad v. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 - Followed.
5. Jagdeo Singh v. Mithailal, AIR 1981 SC 1005 - Applied.
6. Bachan v. Kankar, AIR 1972 SC 2157 - Applied.
7. Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 - Applied.
8. Govt. of Orissa v. Ashok Transport Agency, (2002) 9 SCC 28 - Referred.
9. Ram Harakh v. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 484 - Referred.
10. Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.), (2002) 9 SCC 509 -
Referred.
11. Shri Ram v. DDC & Others, 2011 (4) ADJ 289 (DB) - Referred.
12. Union of India v. Assn. of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, (2011) 10 SCC 543 -
Referred.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.)

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, for respondent-4.
7 All. Amrawati Vs D.D.C. & Ors.
1081
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated
31.01.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 02.06.2011 and Deputy Director of
Consolidation dated 14.07.2015, passed in title proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute pertains to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 141
(consisting of plots 16/684 (area 0-1-0 bigha), 17 (area 1-13-0 bigha), 25-kha (area 0-5-0 bigha), 34
(area 0-2-0 bigha), 146 (area 0-5-0 bigha), 148-kha (area 0-3-0 bigha), 149 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 160
(area 1-0-0 bigha), 161-kha (area 0-11-0 bigha), 162 (area 1-0-0 bigha), 212-kha (area 1-16-0
bigha), 220-kha (area 0-2-0 bigha), 222 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 223 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 224 (area 0-3-0
bigha), 230-ka (area 0-2-0 bigha), 321-kha (area 0-14-0 bigha), 328-cha (area 0-4-0 bigha), 329
(area 6-3-0 bigha), 340-ka (area 0-10-0 bigha), 368-ka (area 6-2-0 bigha), 371 (area 0-8-0 bigha),
386 (area 1-4-0 bigha), 400-ka (area 0-11-0 bigha), 436-ga (area 0-5-0 bigha), 437-kha (area 0-2-0
bigha), 443-k (area 0-10-0 bigha), 444-kha (area 0-10-0 bigha), total 28 plots (area 24-15-0 bigha),
of village Raipura, tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra, in the name of Smt. Gangi, widow of
Ram Surat. During partal following disputes amongst other were raised and noted in CH Form-4:-

 (i) Smt. Parwati (respondent-4) and Smt. Nanki filed an objection on 21.08.1991 under
Section 9 (2) of the Act, for recording their names over the land in dispute as the heirs of Mewa
(being his daughters) and deleting the name of Smt. Gangi and their transferees from khata in
dispute. Smt. Nanki died in January 1996 and in her place Banarasi was substituted on 12.03.1996.
Now Smt. Parwati is representing him. (ii) Shiv Shankar (respondent-7) claimed for recording his
name over plots 160 (area 1-0-0 bigha) and 161 (area 0-11-0 bigha) on the basis of sale deed
executed by Ram Surat in his favour. (iii) Smt. Amrawati (the petitioner) claimed for recording her
name over plots 371 (area 0-8-0 bigha), 386 (area 1-4-0 bigha), 436-ga (area 0-5-0 bigha), 443-k
(area 0-10-0 bigha) on the basis of sale deed executed by Ram Surat in her favour. (iv) Zahruddin
(respondent-6) claimed for recording his name over plot 212 (area 1-16-0 bigha) on the basis of
sale deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. Various other disputes were also noted in respect of
different plots of khata 141 in CH Form-4 but its reference are not relevant. Assistant
Consolidation Officer referred the disputes to Consolidation Officer for decision and issued notices
to the parties. Subsequently Smt. Gangi filed various objections on 28.08.1991 under Section 9 (2)
of the Act for rejecting the claims of various persons as noted in CH Form-4. Amrawati filed an
objection on 20.08.1991, claiming that Smt. Gangi executed two sale deeds 17.02.1989 and
13.07.1996 of the land in dispute in her favour as such her name be recorded over all the plots of
the khata in dispute. During pendency of the cases, before Consolidation Officer, Smt. Gangi died
in August 1998 and in her place, Amrawati was substituted as her legal representative by order
dated 11.08.1999. Zahruddin (respondent-6) and Shiv Shankar (respondent-7) also filed their
separate objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act.

4. All the cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation
Officer by order dated 30.10.1991 issued notices to the parties, fixing 11.11.1991. The cases were
adjourned on 11.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 29.11.1991, 10.12.1991, 13.12.1991. On 18.12.1991, the
parties took time for filing compromise and 20.12.1991 was fixed. On 20.12.1991, none of the
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

parties or their counsel appeared and Consolidation Officer decided all the cases exparte.
Thereafter, Parwati (respondent-4) filed an application dated 20.12.1991 for recall of the order,
which was allowed on 20.12.1991. On the application the word "swikrit" has been written. In the
order sheet "Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence
of the plaintiff" has been written. Amrawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer
12.03.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amrawati attended the
court on the date fixed in the case up to 12.12.2002. On 24.12.2002, statement of Parwati was
recorded and on 05.05.2003, statement of her witness, Hanuman was recorded. On 26.10.2004,
Amrawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. Order dated 13.12.1991 passed in
Case Nos. 1333 and 1334 were recalled by order dated 25.09.2006 and these cases were also
consolidated with Case No. 124 and 04.11.2006 was fixed for framing issues.

5. Amrawati challenged the order dated 25.09.2006 in Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07. As
such, she absented before Consolidation Officer, although in appeal, further proceeding before
Consolidation Officer was not stayed. Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07 was dismissed on 26.07.2007.
Consolidation Officer framed issues on 15.10.2007, exparte. Revision No. 43/73 of 2007-08 filed
by Amrawati against the aforesaid order was dismissed in default on 04.03.2008. Thereafter,
Consolidation Officer again issued notices to Amrawati and others on 26.04.2008. In spite of
service, Amrawati did not appear before Consolidation Officer. On 08.12.2008, the counsel for
Parwati stated that evidence of Parwati had already been recorded and it may be treated evidence
on her behalf. Consolidation Officer fixed a date for arguments. On 10.05.2010, Consolidation
Officer again held service on the parties was sufficient and proceeded exparte. On 17.07.2010,
Amrawati filed an application that in the application dated 20.12.1991, by fabricating word
"swikrit" has been written in the date 21.12.1991 and she be granted time to file objection in the
application dated 20.12.1991 and order dated 21.12.1991 be declared as forged. The parties filed
objection and counter objection on this application and the application was heard on 03.01.2011
and 15.01.2011 was fixed for order. But in record of Consolidation Officer, there was no order
dated 15.01.2011. The case was finally decided by order dated 31.01.2011 by Consolidation
Officer, who held that name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa by making forgery
in the records. As such name of Ram Surat was directed to be deleted from the land in dispute and
names of Parwati and Banarasi were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa. Objections of the
transferees of Ram Surat were also dismissed.

6. Amrawati filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 14 of 2010-11) and Zahruddin
(respondent-6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 215 of 2010-11) from the aforesaid order.
Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his
order dated 02.06.2011 held that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled by Consolidation Officer on
21.12.1991 and the case was restored. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Mewa son
of Ram Saran in khatauni 1360 F. In khatauni 1363 F-1365 F, an amaldaramad recording the name
of Ram Surat was made, on the basis of order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955. The petitioner could
not adduce any evidence to prove as to how name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of
Mewa. Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the name of Mewa and record the name of Ram
Surat. It has been proved from the evidence on record by Parwati that Parwati and Nanki were
7 All. Amrawati Vs D.D.C. & Ors.
1083
daughters and heirs of Mewa. On these findings the appeals were dismissed. Amrawati filed a
revision (registered as Revision No. 33/33/40/83 of 2013-14) and Zahruddin filed a revision
(registered as Revision No. 32/32/39/82 of 2013-14) against the aforesaid order. Both the revisions
were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.07.2014,
affirmed the findings of Courts below and dismissed the revisions.

7. Amrawati filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-B No. 62174 of 2014). In the writ
petition, various grounds including that order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.1991 was never
recalled as such Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass fresh order on 31.01.2011 were
raised. Due to serious factual controversy and as desired by counsel for both the parties, original
records of the consolidation authorities relating to the cases were summoned. From original records
facts narrated above were verified. It was found that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled on
21.12.1991. On the application word "swikrit" has been written but in order sheet detail order was
mentioned. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, writ petition was allowed by judgment dated
21.01.2015 and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.07.2014 was set aside and the
matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was directed to record a finding in
respect of genuineness of the order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955, after giving fresh opportunity of
evidence to the parties. Thereafter, Zahruddin also filed a highly belated writ petition i.e. Writ-B
No. 5954 of 2015, against the orders of consolidation authorities. As the matter had been remanded
to Deputy Director of Consolidation as such this writ petition was allowed by order dated
03.02.2015 and Zaharuddin was also given liberty to appear before Deputy Director of
Consolidation, who was directed to consider his case also while deciding revisions.

8. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation again heard the revisions and by order
dated 14.07.2015 held that Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the name of Mewa from the land
in dispute and record the name of Ram Surat over it. A suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1
of 1951 was filed by Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati Devi for declaring them as owners of the land in
dispute and deleting the names of Mewa and his transferees on 02.06.1988, which was abated
under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter objections were filed before Assistant Consolidation
Officer on 21.08.1991. On these findings, he dismissed the revisions of the petitioner and
Zahruddin again. Zahruddin filed Writ B No. 52946 of 2015, against aforesaid order, which was
dismissed on merit by order dated 16.09.2015. Now, after a long delay, this writ petition has been
filed by Amrawati.

9. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark
column of khasra 1359 F as he was in cultivatory possession over the disputed land. Due to
mistake, his name was not recorded in khatauni of subsequent year. Ram Surat filed an application
(registered as Case No. 8/887) before Tahsildar, for recording his name, which was allowed by
order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955. In pursuance thereof, name of Ram Surat was mutated in
khatauni 1365 F. The order was also mentioned in Malikan Register. By The Uttar Pradesh Land
Laws Amendment Act, 1961, (U.P. Act No. X of 1961) the orders passed by Tahsildar under
principal Act i.e. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, were validated. Village in question was placed
under Survey and Record Operation under Section 48 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Final
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Settlement Record was prepared in 1369 F, in which, name of Ram Surat was again recorded.
Section 44 and 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 raise presumption regarding correctness of
entries in Annual Register and Settlement Entries. Mewa or his widow never challenged order of
Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955. They never raised any claim during record operation or thereafter.
Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati Devi, who are strangers, for the first time filed a suit (registered as
Suit No. 110 of 1988) under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring them as owners
of the land in dispute and deleting the names of Ram Surat and his transferees on 02.06.1988, i.e.
after more than 33 years. This suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter,
objection was filed during consolidation, which was dismissed by order of Consolidation Officer
dated 20.12.1991. Although in recall application, 30.12.1991 was the date fixed but by making
forgery, the order was recalled in back date i.e. 21.12.1991, by writing word "swikrit" on recall
application. There is no evidence to prove that Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parvati Devi were daughters of
Mewa or they were in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner is daughter of Ram Surat
and Smt. Gangi and also obtained sale deeds from then of the land in dispute. The names of Ram
Surat and Smt. Gangi were through out recorded since 1955 till basic consolidation year, heavy
burden was upon respondent-4 to prove her title and possession. Burden of proof has been wrongly
shifted upon the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to follow the direction in
remand order of this Court, in its true spirit, inasmuch as he was directed to record a findings
regarding genuineness of the amaldaramad of the order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955 as made in
khatauni 1363-F to 1365 F but he has not recorded a definite finding in this respect. Consolidation
authorities ignored the order of Tahsildar on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to correct annual
register, without considering khasra 1359 F and that the orders of Tahsildar were validated by U.P.
Act No. X of 1961. Ram Surat died in the year 1987, then three set of mutation applications were
filed before Tahsildar i.e. (i) Smt. Gangi widow of Ram Surat (ii) Radhey Shyam Singh and (iii)
Shiv Murat. Tahsildar by order dated 02.07.1987 directed for mutation of the name of Smt. Gangi
as an heir of Ram Surat. By order dated 30.04.1991, Tahsildar has maintained the order dated
02.07.1987. In basic consolidation year, name of Smt. Gangi was recorded over the land in dispute
and burden was upon respondent-4 to prove her title and continuous possession. Consolidation
authorities illegally held that entry of the name of Ram Surat was made by making forgery, without
considering the fact that he was recorded occupant in 1359 F also. Long standing entry could not be
deleted without any evidence. In any case, Ram Surat and after his death his widow and thereafter
the petitioner have been in possession of the land in dispute and their names cannot be deleted.
Orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon judgments
Supreme Court in Amba Prasad Vs. Mahboob Ali Shah, AIR 1965 SC 54, Wali Mohammad
Vs. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296, Udai Vs. DDC and others, AIR 1990 SC 471, Hira Lal Vs.
Gajjan (1990) 3 SCC 285, and judgment of this Court Pir Khan Vs. DDC and others, 1965
ALJ 591, Chobey Sunder Lal Vs. Sonu @ Sonpal, 1967 ALJ 960 (FB), Km. Radha Kishori
Vs. JDC and others, 1972 ALJ 738 (DB) and Sitawan Vs. Pradeep Kumar, 2006 (101) RD
215, in which it has been held that a person recorded as "occupant" in 1359 F had become sirdar
under Section 20 of U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951. In Joint Collector Ranga Reddy Vs. D. Narsing
Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695, it has been held that even if no limitation has been provided, the order is
required to be challenged within reasonable time. Judgments of Supreme Court in State of Kerala
Vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Manbiar Manjeri Mannikoti Nanduvi, (1996) 1 SCC 435, Sultan
7 All. Amrawati Vs D.D.C. & Ors.
1085
Sadik Vs. Sanjay Raj Subba, (2004) 4 SCC 377, Nagappan Vs. Ammasai Gounder, (2004) 13
SCC 450, M. Minakshi Vs. Metadin Agrawal, (2006) 7 SCC 470, Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi
Swarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194 and Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia Vs. Bombay Enviromental
Action Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363, in which it has been held that a void order, if not set aside in
proper forum, it cannot be ignored in collateral proceeding. State of Himanchal Pradesh Vs.
Narain Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 115 and Rajendra Shankar Shukla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
AIR 2015 SC 3147, in which it has been held that legislature is competent to make law
retrospectively and validate the action which was otherwise without jurisdiction. State of U.P. Vs.
Synthetic and Chemical Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139, M/S Ariane Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wyeth
Employees Union, (2015) 7 SCC 561 and Satendra Kumar Vs. Raj Nath Dubey, 2016 SCC
online 478, in which it has been held that previous judgment on issue of law does not operate as
res-judicata.

10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record.
Although, the orders of consolidation authorities, challenged in this writ petition have been upheld
by this Court in Writ B No. 52946 of 2015 Zahruddin Vs. State of U.P. and others, by judgment
dated 16.09.2015. But in view of cases cited above, by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court
proposes to decide the points raised in this writ petition again.

11. Under Section 20 (b) (ii) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, a person recorded as occupant in
khasra or khatuni 1356 F prepared under Section 28 and 33 respectively of U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901, or who was on the date, immediately proceeding the date of vesting entitled to regain
possession thereof under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of United Provinces Tenancy
Amendment Act, 1947, shall be called adhivasi of the land and shall subject to provisions of this
Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation -II to this section provides that
where any entry in the records referred to in clause (b) has been corrected before the date of vesting
under or in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1091, the entry so corrected
shall for the purposes of the said clause shall prevail. By U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,
1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954) Chapter IX-A was added in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, by which
adhivasi were conferred sirdari right. In present case, the petitioner did not file any document to
show that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in 1356 F. The petitioner relied upon khasra 1359
F, in which name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark column. Entry of 1359 F is relevant only in
those cases, where it was corrected, according to the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
Thus on its basis, no right can be claimed. Supreme Court in Bachan v. Kankar, AIR 1972 SC
2157, held that it is too obvious to be stressed that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the
records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly
useless without any lawful basis.

12. Due to contradictory judgments Supreme Court and this Court on the issue as to who
can be treated as "recorded occupant" under Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the matter
was referred to a Bench of five Judges in Basdeo Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1974 All 337
(SB), in which it has been held that the phrase "recorded as occupant" has a technical significance.
Before record of the name of any person in the khasra or khatauni can be treated as a record of an
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

occupant, the entry must be established to be made according to provisions of U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901 and U.P. Land Record Manual, governing the making of entries of occupant and entry
must be genuine and not fictitious. If a person is recorded in the sub-tenant's column and another
person is recorded as a mortgagee in the remark's column, none of them will be deemed to be a
"recorded occupant". This judgment has been approved by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges in
Chandrika Prasad Vs. Pullo, (2000) 4 SCC 227. Similar view has been taken in Ram Harakh
Vs. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 484. In view of contradictory judgments, judgment of
larger Bench of Chandrika Prasad (supra) has to be followed.

13. U.P. Land Records Manual prescribes form of khasra. Column-5 of khasra, is for
recording the name of cultivator and rent, if changed. Column-6 is for recording the names of subtenants or tenants of sir or tenants of permanent tenure holders or rent free grantees or grantees at a
favourable rent or occupier of land without consent of the person (entitled to admit a sub-tenants
and rent). Detail procedure for making entry in column-6 of khasra is given in Paragraph-87 of U.P.
Land Records Manual. In present case, name of Mewa was recorded in column-5 of khasra as
cultivator. Ram Surat may either be sub-tenant or occupier of land without consent of the tenant.
His name must be recorded in column-6 of khasra 1359 F, if he was found in actual cultivatory
posession during partal. Entry of column-6 of khasra can alone be regarded as an entry of "recorded
occupant" for purposes of Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Ram Surat cannot be treated as
"recorded occupant" on its basis nor he can be given right of sirdar under Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act
No. 1 of 1951. In any case, as held above, he was not recorded in 1356 F as such on the basis of
khasra 1359 F alone no right accrued.

14. So far as alleged order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955, endorsement of which has been
made in Malikan Register and amaldaramad of which was made in khatauni 1365 F, is concerned,
at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 62174 of 2014, the counsel for the respondent had
produced a questioner to the effect that no case was registered before Tahsildar in the year 1955 on
the application of Ram Surat nor any order was passed on 19.04.1955. He submitted that entry in
khatauni 1363 F-1365 F was merely a forgery without there being any order of any competent
authority. Ram Surat had no concern with family of Mewa nor the petitioner could adduce any
evidence to justify for recording the name of Ram Surat over the land of Mewa. As the questioner
was produced before this Court as such the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of
Consolidation, for giving opportunity of evidence to both the parties, with direction to record a
fresh findings as to whether entry made in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F was genuine or forged. After
remand, the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that any application was filed by
Ram Surat or any order was passed by Tahsildar on it on 19.04.1955 to justify the entry made in
khatauni 1363 F-1366 F nor she could file any thing in writ petition in this respect. Deputy Director
of Consolidation found that entry of the name of Ram Surat in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F for the first
time is a forgery. U.P. Act No. X of 1961 validated genuine orders and not a forgery/fabrication in
records. Fabricated entry does not affect the right and title of Mewa or his heirs. Under the
provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Tahsildar has no jurisdiction record the name of any
person in khatauni except in cases of transfer or succession as held by Supreme Court in Jagdeo
Singh Vs. Mithailal, AIR 1981 SC 1005.
7 All. Amrawati Vs D.D.C. & Ors.
1087

15. Even if the order of Tahsildar or settlement entry of 1369 F had been genuine, it would
be an order under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 40-A and Section 54 (8)
(b) of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, provides that the orders passed relating to mutation/correction
by revenue court in proceedings under Section 33, 35, 39, 40 and 54 can always be challenged in
the suit and has no effect of res-judicata. Appendix-III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 provides limitation for the suit and other proceedings under the Act. For filing
a suit for declaration of right under Section 229-B, limitation is "none" vide Entry-39-B. Supreme
Court in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653, Durga Das Vs. Collector, AIR 1996
SC 2786, Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997
SC 2181, Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2719, Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai,
(2003) 2 SCC 464, Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd., AIR 2005
SC 1879 and Suraj Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 held that mutation of a
property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value
on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in
question. In State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries (P) Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 382 and Union of
India Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society, AIR 2014 SC 937 held that it is trite that entry in
the revenue record alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied upon
for proof of establishing the title as such. A Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram Vs. DDC
and others, 2011 (4) ADJ 289 (DB), after reviewing entire law on the subject, held that a long
standing entry hold only a presumptory value and cannot be taken as absolute proof of title.

16. On coming to know about this entry in revenue records, Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati
Devi (claiming themselves as the daughters and heirs of Mewa) filed a suit (registered as Suit No.
110 of 1988) under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring them as owners of the
land in dispute and deleting the names of Ram Surat, Smt. Gangi and their transferees on
02.06.1988. This suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter, objection was filed
during consolidation on 21.08.1991. Consolidation Officer found that name of Mewa was recorded
in khatauni 1360 F and 1363 F. Ram Surat (predecessor of the petitioner) was recorded over the
land in dispute by order of Tahsildar dated 19.04.1955 in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F. Under the
provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Tahsildar had jurisdiction to mutate the name of any
person in cases of transfer or succession. The petitioner could not prove that land in dispute was
transferred by Mewa to Ram Surat nor that Ram Surat was the heir of Mewa as such, Deputy
Director of Consolidation found that amaldaramad made in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F by the order of
Tahsidar is a fabricated entry. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. of Unified Telecom
Service Providers of India, (2011) 10 SCC 543, relying upon previous judgments in Chief Justice
of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu, (1979) 2 SCC 34, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1,
National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 and Chandrabhai K.
Bhoir v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir, (2009) 2 SCC 315, held that an order passed without jurisdiction
would be a nullity. It will be a coram non judice [and] non est in the eye of the law. Principles of
res judicata would not apply to such cases."
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR 1976 SC 1485,
held that it is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face
value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the
presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The
distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of
what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made
fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot
found a claim to possessory title. This judgment has been followed in Wali Mohhd. Vs. Ram
Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296. Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate
(Fin. & Rev.), (2002) 9 SCC 509, it has been held that the entry in the revenue record must have a
legal basis. Further there was no adjudication of dispute as regards continuance of the wrong entry.
The appellant could not have claimed any title over the land in dispute merely on the basis of
wrong entry which continued in its favour through negligence or failure of the Revenue Officer or
the Consolidation Officer to correct the record, in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue
which had attained finality. In the consolidation proceedings, the Collector is also the District
Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is authorized
to correct any wrong entry continued in the consolidation record in that capacity in the exercise of
power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

18. So far as burden of proof is concerned, both the parties adduced their evidence as such
burden of proof has no role. The dispute has been decided on considering evidence of the parties.
Findings of facts that Smt.