# Ram Roop & Ors v. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 313
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 51738 of 2000
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-roop-ors-v-commissioner-azamgarh-division-azamgarh-ors-49154
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) Consolidation Law - The Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4(2),5(2)
& 9-A(2) - notification , Section 52 - Close
of consolidation operations , The U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 33 r. w.
Section 39 - annual registers - Correction
of mistakes in the annual register , section
219 - Revision .

Villages denotified under Section 52 of CH Act -
petitioner granted Sirdari rights over plot -
possession over plots for last 25/26 years -
notification
issued
under
Section
4(2)
-
consolidation
proceedings
restored
-
consolidation operation - change of entries in
revenue records by respondent no.1 - without
issuing notice or affording an opportunity of
hearing - objection - revision - dismissed -
hence petition.(Para - 2 to 9)

(B) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - consolidation court has no power
to pass an order regarding the holding of
Gram Samaj and if they pass any order, it
would be null and void - Consolidation
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
courts or the respondents have not provided the
land in suit to petitioner as sirdar - entries in
revenue records were secretly recorded without
any basis and it was the result of manipulation.
(Para - 17 )

(C) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - no one gets any right on the land of
Gram Samaj/State on the basis of adverse
possession and he cannot be the owner of
the land of the Gram Samaj/State - No
opportunity of hearing is required for
expunging the forged and fabricated entry
- A forged and fictitious entry how so long
will not confer any right to the petitioner -
no right, title or interest had been conferred to
petitoner on the basis of forged and fabricated
entry - trespasser and unauthorized occupant
over the land of Gram Panchayat - who can be
evicted forcefully - liable to pay damages etc.
(Para - 18,19,21)

(D) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - any judicial order obtained by
playing fraud is null and void - They do
not confer any right - Such fraudulant
entry can be removed at any time -
notification under Section 4(1) of CH Act was
no bar in exercising the jurisdiction by the
revenue authorities under Section 33/39 of LR
Act as the matter was not open for the
intervention of the consolidation courts -
impugned orders do not suffer from any
manifest error. (Para - 25)

HELD:-Petition meritless and deserves to be
dismissed.(Para -26)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ram Roop & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh & Ors.
313
can possibly be said that the accused was
honorably acquitted."

22. In this case, in all the three cases
no case against the petitioner has been
made out and in one case final report has
been submitted, in another case, the
petitioner was discharged and in the case of
Goondas
Act,
the
proceedings
were
dropped. Therefore, it can safely be said
that even no trial started against the
petitioner.
Hence,
both
the
judicial
precedents cited above, do not apply
against the petitioner.

23. Thus, on the basis of the papers
annexed with the petition and discussions
made hereinabove, it transpires that no
criminal case is pending against the
petitioner on which basis Arms License No.
1316 police station Civil Lines, could have
been terminated, hence, the order dated
17.2.2004
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate, Etawah, and the order dated
26.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur, canceling the
arms license of the petitioner Ramesh
Chandra Yadav s/o of Shri Taleh Singh, r/o
Ashok Nagar, Police Station Civil Lines,
District- Etawah, are liable to be quashed.

Order

24. The writ petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 17.2.2004 passed
by
respondent
no.2,
District
Magistrate/Licencing Authority, District
Etawah and the order dated 26.4.2005
passed by respondent no.3, Commissioner,
Kanpur
Region,
Kanpur
are
hereby
quashed.

25. If no any other reason exists for
cancellation of the arms license of the
petitioner, the arms license, already granted
to the petitioner, shall continue and if it is
terminated
or
revoked,
it
shall
be
revived/reissued.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 313
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 51738 of 2000

Ram Roop & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner,
Azamgarh
Division,
Azamgarh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Raj Kishore Yadav, Sri S.C. Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anuj Kumar

(A) Consolidation Law - The Consolidation
of Holdings Act, 1953 - Sections 4(2),5(2)
& 9-A(2) - notification , Section 52 - Close
of consolidation operations , The U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 - Section 33 r. w.
Section 39 - annual registers - Correction
of mistakes in the annual register , section
219 - Revision .

Villages denotified under Section 52 of CH Act -
petitioner granted Sirdari rights over plot -
possession over plots for last 25/26 years -
notification
issued
under
Section
4(2)
-
consolidation
proceedings
restored
-
consolidation operation - change of entries in
revenue records by respondent no.1 - without
issuing notice or affording an opportunity of
hearing - objection - revision - dismissed -
hence petition.(Para - 2 to 9)

(B) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - consolidation court has no power
to pass an order regarding the holding of
Gram Samaj and if they pass any order, it
would be null and void - Consolidation
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
courts or the respondents have not provided the
land in suit to petitioner as sirdar - entries in
revenue records were secretly recorded without
any basis and it was the result of manipulation.
(Para - 17 )

(C) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - no one gets any right on the land of
Gram Samaj/State on the basis of adverse
possession and he cannot be the owner of
the land of the Gram Samaj/State - No
opportunity of hearing is required for
expunging the forged and fabricated entry
- A forged and fictitious entry how so long
will not confer any right to the petitioner -
no right, title or interest had been conferred to
petitoner on the basis of forged and fabricated
entry - trespasser and unauthorized occupant
over the land of Gram Panchayat - who can be
evicted forcefully - liable to pay damages etc.
(Para - 18,19,21)

(D) The Consolidation of Holdings Act,
1953 - any judicial order obtained by
playing fraud is null and void - They do
not confer any right - Such fraudulant
entry can be removed at any time -
notification under Section 4(1) of CH Act was
no bar in exercising the jurisdiction by the
revenue authorities under Section 33/39 of LR
Act as the matter was not open for the
intervention of the consolidation courts -
impugned orders do not suffer from any
manifest error. (Para - 25)

HELD:-Petition meritless and deserves to be
dismissed.(Para -26)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Mahatam

2. Jamuna Vs St. of U.P. , 2010 (1) RLT 312

3. Jagram Vs Brija , 2010 (1) RLT 9(BR) 15

4. Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. , 2011 (1) RLT 79

5. Sri Ram Vs Gaon Sabha, 1997 RD 549

6. Chandra Datt Vs St. of U.P. , 1992 RD 160
7. Vikram Singh J.H.S. Vs D.M., Farrukhabad ,
1992 RJ 380

8. S.P. Chengal Daria Naidu Vs Jaggannath ,
1993 (6) JT 331

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Shri Raj Kishore Yadav,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been
instituted
to
quash
the
order
dated
13.12.1995 (Annexure No.1), order dated
05.08.1997 (Annexure No.7) passed by
respondent no.2 - Additional Collector,
Land Revenue, Azamgarh, and order dated
31.10.2000 (Annexure No.6) passed by
respondent
no.1-
The
Commissioner,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.

3. In brief facts of the case are that,
villages in Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna,
now Sadar, District Azamgarh, were
denotified
under
Section
52 of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as the CH Act) in
the year 1972. By orders of the respondent
no.2 dated 10.6.1969 the petitioner was
granted Sirdari rights over plot no.2093
(new no.1216) 740 kari and plot no. 226 (
new no.138/5) 421 kari as evident from
form CH-45 and the petitioner is in
possession over the aforesaid plots for the
last 25/26 years. By notification issued
under Section 4(2) of the Act (published in
U.P. Gazette on 5th September, 1992), the
consolidation proceedings were restored in
district
Azamgarh.
During
the
consolidation operation, respondent no.1
exercising its power under Section 33 read
with Section 39 of the U.P. Land Revenue
1 All. Ram Roop & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh & Ors.
315
Act, 1901 (in short ''the LR Act') changed
the entries in the revenue records, based on
the orders passed by the consolidation
Authorities
during
first
consolidation
operations in the village, without issuing
notice to the petitioner or affording him an
opportunity of hearing (Annexure No.1 to
the writ petition).

4. The petitioner has been in peaceful
and cultivatory possession over the land in
dispute for more than 31 years without there
being any dispute regarding the same and
without any claim by the Gaon Sabha and his
name was also recorded in the Khatauni since
1969 and Jotvahi was also issued till date
(Annexure No.2).

5. Against the order dated 13.12.1995, a
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6181 of 1996
was
filed
and
vide
judgment
dated
15.12.1996, operation of the order dated
13.12.1995 was stayed and further it was
directed to the petitioner to move objection
within 15 days before the respondent no.2
(Annexure No.3).

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the
petitioner
filed
objection
before
the
respondent no.2 on 27.02.1996 in case no.49
of 1996 on 27.02.1996. (Annexure No.4).
Respondent no.2 summoned the original
record of CH form 23 and form 45 along with
original khatauni. It was argued that the
petitioner's name was recorded by order dated
10.6.1969 of C.O. Manshipur in case no. 704.
Since the file of case no. 704 was weeded out
hence it was not available in the revenue
records and the name of the petitioner was
mutated in CH form 23 and CH form 45 by
the consolidation authorities and it was just
and proper and there was no forgery done by
the petitioner. It was also argued that after the
issuance of notification U/s 4(2) of the U.P.
C.H. Act, the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to decide the entry or make any
correction. After publication of notification
U/s 4(2) of U.P. C.H. Act, the provisions of
Section 5(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act will come
into play. But without considering the
arguments, after 26 years, respondent no.2
changed the entry while the entry could not
be changed in summary proceeding and such
entry can be corrected only by way of regular
suit but without considering the arguments of
the petitioner, the respondent no.2 rejected
the objection of the petitioner vide order
dated 5.8.1997 (Annexure No. 5).

7. Against the order dated 05.08.1997,
the petitioner preferred revision before the
respondent no.1 and it was argued that order
dated 13.12.1995 and 05.08.1997 were
without jurisdiction in view of the publication
of notification under Section 4(2) of the Act
and it was admitted by the respondent no.1,
even then he dismissed the revision and
confirmed the judgment and order, passed by
the court below vide judgment and order
dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure No.6).

8. In the impugned order dated
13.12.1995, no finding is recorded or given
against the petitioner that he was responsible
for making entries in the revenue record.
Once the village has been renotified for
consolidation, the respondent no. 2 ceases to
have any jurisdiction to pass any orders as the
powers
vest
with
the
consolidation
courts/authorities.

9. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been
contended that all the three impugned orders
i.e. 13.12.1995, 5.8.1997 and 31.10.2000 are
wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes
of law and therefore, they deserve to be
quashed and the petition be allowed.

10. From the side of respondent
counter affidavit has been filed by
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tehsildar wherein respondents have denied
the allegations of the petitioner and have
replied
that
petitioner's
name
was
fictitiously recorded in pursuance of the
alleged order dated 10.06.1969 and when it
came to the notice of the authority
concerned, the name of the petitioner was
expunged from the revenue record as there
was no such order in the office. Admittedly
plot in question is the property of the Gaon
Sabha and no Sirdhari right accrues to the
petitioner over the same. If the petitioner
had any grievance, he should have filed an
objection under Section 9-A (2)of the U.P.
C.H. Act before consolidation authority as
the village in question was notified under
Section 4(2) of the Act and was published
in the gazette on 5.9.1992 but the petitioner
did not file any objection as such he has no
right or title in view of the fictitious entry
in the revenue record. It is not the case of
the correction of the paper and applications
are not maintainable under section 33/39 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act after village in
question was notified under Section 4(2) of
the Act.

11. By order dated 13.12.1995 passed
by respondent no.2, name of the petitioner
was ordered to be expunged from the
revenue record. The petitioner filed Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.6181 of 1996
against the aforesaid order and the Hon'ble
Court vide order dated 15.12.1995 disposed
of the petition directing the petitioner to file
an application/objection before the Chief
Revenue Officer within 15 days. In
pursuance of the order dated 15.12.1996,
the
petitioner
should have
filed
an
application/objection
separately
before
respondent no.2. Annexure no.4 shows that
the petitioner has filed objection in case
no.49 of 1996 under Section 33/39 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act. In fact the
petitioner succeeded to get his name
recorded in the revenue record on the basis
of fictitious order which is not available in
the record room. As the petitioner has
already filed Writ Petition No.6181 of
1996, it could not be clearly ascertained
that how the petitioner escaped himself and
filed another writ petition No.5930 of 1996
filed by Jaintri. The petitioner was directed
to comply with the order dated 15.02.1996
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.6180
of
1996.
The
petitioner
filed
Revision/Reference No.82/261 A/97 under
Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act
against the order dated 05.08.1997 passed
by the Additional District Magistrate,
Azamgarh in case of State of UP Vs.
Mahatam under Section 33/39 of the UP
Land Revenue Act. After considering the
material on record and giving opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner, the revision
was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2000
which is legal and just. There is no question
of law involved in the writ petition to be
decided.

12. Therefore, it was submitted that
the writ petition is devoid of merit and in
view of the facts and circumstances, the
same is liable to be dismissed.

13. Denying the allegations made in
the counter affidavit, the petitioner had
filed rejoinder affidavit on 07.05.2000 in
which he has reiterated the version of the
petition.

14. On the basis of the averments and
arguments of the petitioner, the following
three main points emerge, resolving which
this petition can be disposed of:

(I) Whether by the orders of
respondent no.2/consolidation court dated
10.06.1969 sirdari rights were granted to
late Ram Roop over plot no.2093 (new
1 All. Ram Roop & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh & Ors.
317
no.121) area 740 kari and plot no.226 (new
no.138/5) area 421 kari?

(II) Whether on the basis of
above entries the petitioners are in peaceful
possession over the plots in question and
whether on the basis of such long standing
entries and alleged peaceful possession any
indestructible right has accrued in favour of
the petitioner?

(III) Whether after renotification
of consolidation proceedings under Section
4(2) of CH Act on 05.09.1992 the revenue
authorities had no right to exercise their
power under Section 33/39 of LR Act to
remove the entries from the record of
rights? and on that basis the impugned
orders are liable to be quashed.

Conclusion

15. Issue No.1--The petitioner could
not produce the extract of the order dated
10.06.1969 passed by the concerned
authorities either in previous petition or in
this writ petition and also could not
produce such order before the respondents.
The order of CRO/In charge Officer,
Azamgarh and Commissioner. Azamgarh is
based on the report of the record keeper
from which it was revealed that 14 forged
orders have been incorporated in blue ink
instead of red ink and by such forged
orders properties of Gram Samaj (now
Gram Panchayat) have been named to the
private persons. By such forged orders
navin parti, banjar, pond, grave yard, land
allotted for plantation, khaliyan (barn),
pasture and bhita land have been named to
the petitioners and other persons. It was
also found that no such orders were
available in the concerned bundle. Even it
was found that in case of Jaintri an order
under Section 229-B is shown but it was
entered in jild consolidation whereas there
is no such procedure.

16. It is obvious that consolidation
court has no power to pass an order
regarding the holding of Gram Samaj and if
they pass any order, it would be null and
void. But in these cases even no such order
of consolidation court was found to be
passed. It was also found that even an order
under Section 9 of CH Act was written in
blue ink over the pond land. Among these
14 forged entries at serial no.5 name of
Ram Roop and the impugned lands are
mentioned. Thus, the revenue authorities
found that all these 14 entries were entered
by playing fraud by which no right, title or
interest passes and accrues in favour of the
petitioner and the other persons. The
petitioner and the other persons could not
show any paper of their right and title at the
time of abolition of zamindari or prior to
that. Such right can not arise all of sudden
and without any basis. Why these lands
would be allotted to the petitioner and the
other persons. The consolidation courts
were acting as revenue authorities. They
were not entitled to award sirdari rights
over the land of Gram Samaj without any
basis. These lands were not given to the
concerned persons in lieu of their land etc.
There was no basis at all to enter the name
of the petitioner and the other persons over
those lands.

17. On the basis of above discussion
it is concluded that consolidation courts or
the respondents have not provided the land
in suit to late Ram Roop as sirdar. The
entries in revenue records were secretly
recorded without any basis and it was the
result of manipulation. Thus, issue no.1 is
decided in negative and against the
petitioner.

18. Issue No.2--From the above
discussions it is proved that the name of
late Ram Roop was recorded in revenue
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
records without any basis. No such order
was passed, therefore, the petitioner does
not get any right on the basis of fake entry,
no matter how old it is. It is also an
established principle that no one gets any
right on the land of Gram Samaj/State on
the basis of adverse possession and he
cannot be the owner of the land of the
Gram Samaj/State.

19. In Jamuna Vs. State of UP about
the exercise of power under Section 33/39
of LR Act principles have been laid down
about dealing with forged and fabricated
entry in revenue record. In the cited case
the entry in revenue record was found to be
forged and fabricated, therefore, it was
expunged. This Court held that fraud
vitiates everything. Such entries can be
expunged at any stage. No opportunity of
hearing is required for expunging the
forged and fabricated entry.

20. In Jagram Vs. Brija the board of
revenue held that claim on the basis of
wrong entry in the khatauni can not be
sustained. Such entry should be in
accordance with the provisions of law. If an
entry is wrongly made in the khatauni, no
right can be claimed on the basis of such
entry. If the entry in the name od tenure
holder is wrong, the entry of the name of
successor will also be treated as wrong. If
the order for correction of entry has been
passed, there is no illegality in the same.

21. On the basis of the above
discussion and the judicial precedents it is
concluded that no right, title or interest had
been conferred to late Ram Roop on the
basis of forged and fabricated entry. A
forged and fictitious entry how so long will
not confer any right to the petitioner.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the late
Ram Roop and his legal representatives
were in peaceful and lawful possession
over the property in suit but it can be
concluded that they are the trespasser and
unauthorized occupant over the land of
Gram Panchayat who can be evicted
forcefully and they are also liable to pay
damages etc.

22. On the basis of above discussions
issue no.2 is decided against the petitioner.

23. Issue No.3--According to the
petitioner after renotification under Section
4(2) of the CH Act on 05.09.1992 the
respondents were not entitled to expunge
the entry already existed in favour of the
petitioner exercising the power under
Section 33/39 of the LR Act. While
deciding issue no.1 it has been held that no
such order was passed in favour of Ram
Roop as no such file existed in record room
and the entries were also not made in
accordance with law. There was no basis of
such entries. The properties were of Gram
Samaj and out of the jurisdiction of the
consolidation courts. Though no such order
was passed by the consolidation court but
even it was beyond the power of the
consolidation court to pass an order and
enter the petitioner as sirdar on the property
of Gram Samaj. Under Section 33/39 of the
LR Act the Collector and the Tehsildar are
duty bound to remove the errors and
omissions
from
the
record-of-rights
register. The papers were submitted by the
consolidation authorities after the closer of
the consolidation proceedings. Thereafter it
was the duty of the Collector and Tehsildar
to
maintain
the
revenue
records
in
accordance with law. For this they are
empowered under Section 33/39 of the LR
Act. So they applied their rights.

24. In Raj Singh Vs. State of UP it is
held that if the entry is not based on any
1 All. Anil Saha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
319
document of title or the order has not been
passed by the competent court, the same
may be expunged in the proceeding under
Section 33/39 of LR Act treating them to
be a clerical mistake. In the cited case the
original patta and the allotment resolution
was not produced in original. Similarly in
this case, the order dated 10.09.1969 has
not been produced by the petitioner.

25. In Sri Ram Vs. Gaon Sabha4
and Chandra Datt Vs. State of UP the
lower courts have also held that if for the
sake of argument it is presumed that the
order
would
have
been
passed
by
consolidation court the question arises as
to whether the consolidation court has
right to deal with the land of the Gram
Samaj? The answer is, No, because the
Gram Samaj land is not included under the
definition of ''holding' when the records
were under the revenue authorities, this
order was passed. The lower courts have
also referred some judicial precedents
such as Vikram Singh Junior High
School
Vs.
District
Magistrate,
Farrukhabad6, S.P.
Chengal Daria
Naidu Vs. Jaggannath in which it is held
that any judicial order obtained by playing
fraud is null and void. They do not confer
any right. Such fraudulant entry can be
removed at any time. Thus, this Court is of
the considered view that the notification
under Section 4(1) of CH Act was no bar
in exercising the jurisdiction by the
revenue authorities under Section 33/39 of
LR Act as the matter was not open for the
intervention of the consolidation courts.
The impugned orders do not suffer from
any manifest error. Therefore, issue no.3 is
decided against the petitioner.

26. On the basis of the aforesaid
discussion it is concluded that this petition
is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER

27. This writ petition is dismissed
with costs.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 319
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6693 of 2021

Anil Saha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prashant Rai, Ms. Vishakha Pande, Sri
Rakesh Pande (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Constitution
of
India,1950 - Article 226 - U.P. Gangsters
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act,1986 - Sections 2/3-Quashing of FIRCase under the Act 1986 may not be
registered on the basis of single criminal
antecedent,
rather
the
condition
precedent is that the ingredients for
registration of case under above the Act
ought to be fulfilled as per section 2(c),
2(b) of the Act-In the present case,
offence against petitioner is within above
category of offences and gang with its
gang leader and members have been
committing these offences for which this
registration of case crime number is
there-the case does not fall in all the
categories recognized by the Apex Court
which may justify their quashing-there
appears
to
be
sufficient
ground
for
investigation-Hence,
no
indulgence
is
required.(Para 1 to 14)