# Soteem & Ors v. Upper Commissioner

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 292
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 37294 of 2006
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soteem-ors-v-upper-commissioner-49148
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - Section 33/39 - annual registers/
Correction of mistakes in the annual
register -
U.P
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49 - Bar to
civil Courts jurisdiction , section 52 - Close
of consolidation operations - mere entry in
revenue records does not confer any right
- entries in revenue record are not
conclusive proof and are not the record of
title, they are only for the purposes to
collect the revenue - duty of maintaining
correct record lies on the Collector. (Para -
8,10,12)

Right, title and interest between parties
predecessors - finally adjudicated by C.O and
S.O.C during consolidation proceeding - ended
in favour of respondents' father - incorporated
in Aakar Patra 11 (part II) - Due to insufficient
space - not incorporated in concerned Khata -
created doubt - orders of C.O and S.O.C not
forwarded - entered in C.H. Farm No. 41 and 45
and later on in Khatauni. (Para - 24)

HELD:-No basis of entries in favour of father of
petitioner
during
consolidation.
Name
of
petitioners wrongly entered in the Revenue
Records. Mere on the basis of baseless and
illegal
entries,
no
right
accrues
to
the
petitioners. Order of Courts below found to be
correct and need no interference.(Para - 24)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
population
therein,
the
revenue
generated for local administration, the
percentage
of
employment
in
nonagricultural
activities,
the
economic
importance or such other factors as
provided for in clause (2) of Article 243-Q
of the Constitution. All these factors are to
be taken into consideration while issuing
notification under Section 243-Q. The
respondents in the instant case have cut
short the period during which general
public
was
initially
entitled
to
file
objections.
This
had
prevented
the
petitioner, and many like him, from filing
objections against the draft notification.
This in our opinion, goes to the root of the
matter and renders the final notification
illegal.

11.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
petitioners are not residents of the area
which has been included in the smaller
urban area and, therefore, they had no locus
to file objections.

12. Under law, there is no prohibition
for a person not living in the area which is
sought to be included to file objection.
Concededly, the petitioners are Corporators
of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Baghpat and
the impugned notification is in regard to the
inclusion of various Gram Panchayats in
the Municipal Council, Baghpat. As such, it
cannot be said that they had no locus to file
objection against the draft notification.

13.

Learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel further submits that
during pendency of the writ petition, the
respondents have kept the final notification
in abeyance and granted time to the
petitioners to file objection. It is urged that
under the circumstances, the defect has
been cured.

14. We are of the considered opinion
that the aforesaid exercise will not cure the
defect as post decisional hearing of
objections is not contemplated under law.
The objections were to be decided before
finalizing the draft notification and not
after the issuance of final notification.
Moreover, we notice that the order by
which the final notification was kept in
abeyance is in form of office memorandum
and it is not clear at all whether it was
notified to general public so that others
who are not before us but were deprived of
right to file objection against the proposed
notification had the opportunity to file the
objections.

15. For all the reasons aforesaid, the
impugned notification dated 21.9.2022,
issued by respondent no.1 is hereby
quashed.

16. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 37294 of 2006

Soteem & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Upper
Commissioner
(Judicial)
IInd,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anant Vijay, Sri Anand Kumar, Sri Ashok
Kumar Rai, Sri Shyam Sunder Maurya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha
1 All. Soteem & Ors. Vs. Upper Commissioner (Judicial) IInd, Varanasi Division, Varanasi &
 Ors.
293
(A) Land Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 - Section 33/39 - annual registers/
Correction of mistakes in the annual
register -
U.P
Consolidation
of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49 - Bar to
civil Courts jurisdiction , section 52 - Close
of consolidation operations - mere entry in
revenue records does not confer any right
- entries in revenue record are not
conclusive proof and are not the record of
title, they are only for the purposes to
collect the revenue - duty of maintaining
correct record lies on the Collector. (Para -
8,10,12)

Right, title and interest between parties
predecessors - finally adjudicated by C.O and
S.O.C during consolidation proceeding - ended
in favour of respondents' father - incorporated
in Aakar Patra 11 (part II) - Due to insufficient
space - not incorporated in concerned Khata -
created doubt - orders of C.O and S.O.C not
forwarded - entered in C.H. Farm No. 41 and 45
and later on in Khatauni. (Para - 24)

HELD:-No basis of entries in favour of father of
petitioner
during
consolidation.
Name
of
petitioners wrongly entered in the Revenue
Records. Mere on the basis of baseless and
illegal
entries,
no
right
accrues
to
the
petitioners. Order of Courts below found to be
correct and need no interference.(Para - 24)

Petition Dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs Fakhrul Hassan, AIR
1976 SC 1485

2. Wali Mohhd. Vs Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC
2296

3. Vikram Singh J.H.S. Vs D.M. (Fin. & Rev.),
(2002) 9 SCC 509

4. Mohd. Anis Vs The Additional Commissioner,
Alld. Division, 2001 RD 761

5. Sri Ram Vs Gram Sabha , 1997 R.D 549

6. Kamta Prasad Vs B.O.R., 1985 R.D 411
7. Nandhu Vs Ram Jatan ,1987 R.D, 274

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State and perused the record.

2. The petitioners have filed the
present writ petition for quashing the
impugned orders dated 04.04.2006 passed
by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial)
II, Varanasi - respondent no. 1 in Revision
Nos. 575, 515/355/482/94386 of 1992
District Ghazipur as well as order dated
30.04.1992 passed by Sub Divisional
Officer, District- Ghazipur in Case No.
36/31/157 under Section 33/39 U.P. L.R.
Act, 1901.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
disputed plots nos. are 513, 515 & 518, out
of which plot nos. 513 & 518 were
recorded in the name of the petitioners
from 1360-Fasali in C.H. Form-41, and its
old plot nos. were 544 and 533. The
petitioners
have
annexed
extract
of
Khatauni no. 1369-Fasali and C.H. Form
41 dated 21.08.1987 as Annexure No. 1.

4.

During
the
consolidation
Proceeding
C.H
Form
No.-45
was
prepared, in which petitioner's father was
recorded as Sirdar, which is Annexure no.
2. On 15.10.1986 father of the respondent
nos. 3 to 6 moved an application under
Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901, praying therein for mutation of his
name in respect of new plot nos. 515 and
518 deleting the name of the petitioners on
the basis of the order dated 10.11.1964
alleged to have been passed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Suit
No. 499 of 1790.
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The petitioners raised an objection
that application was moved after 26 years
on the basis of forged orders, it was also
objected that under Section 33/39, such
application cannot be entertained and the
application was barred by Section 49 of the
C.H. Act. It has also been specifically
objected that during the Consolidation, no
case was proceeded between the parties
about the land-in-dispute allotted to the
petitioners. After making a detailed inquiry
and inspection as well as after hearing the
matter the concerned Naib Tehsildar
submitted his report dated 26.10.1991
recommending rejection of the application
to the respondent no. 2 - S.D.O.

6. The respondent no. 2, vide his
order
dated
30.40.1992
allowed
the
application dated 15.10.1986 directing the
deletion of name of the petitioners from the
land-in-dispute, which is annexed as
Annexure 4.

7. The petitioners on 22.05.1992 filed
a Revision No. 94 of 1992 - Soteem and
others Vs. Ghar Bharan and others before
respondent no. 1 - Upper Commission
(Judicial-II) challenging the order dated
30.04.1992 passed by respondent no. 2.
The memo of revision is annexed as
Annexure No. 5. Respondent no. 1 vide his
order
dated
29.05.1992
stayed
the
impugned order dated 30.04.1992 passed
by respondent no. 2, which is Annexure no.
6. The respondent no. 1, vide his order
dated 04.04.2006 dismissed the Revision,
which is annexed at Annexure no. 7. The
respondent nos. 1 and 2 have passed the
orders in arbitrary manner without giving
any finding in respect of fraud played by
the respondents, which is against the set
principle of law. The Court below failed to
consider
that
no
explanation,
about
inordinate delay of 26 years have been
given by the respondents for moving the
application for mutation and failed to
consider the long standing entry of revenue
record. The respondent no. 2 without any
basis recorded perverse finding that after
the death of Jodhi his heirs Murali and
others are in possession over the plot-indispute. The Revisional Court did not
record any finding in respect of possession.
The certified copy of the order dated
10.11.1964 was never produced before the
court below by the respondents and the
same is not available in record room as per
the office report. The court below illegally
discarded the report of Naib Tehsildar in
respect of Mutation, in which he has
specifically proposed that after such delay
no such application can be allowed. The
petitioners are still in possession over the
land-in-dispute and their names are running
recorded even since the time of their
ancestors.
The
petitioners
filed
questionnaire dated 08.06.1995 issued by
the Record Officer (Revenue), in which it
has been answered that file of Case No/
499 of 1790 date of order dated 10.11.1964
was not sent to the Record Room, which
has not been considered by the Revisional
Court, which is annexed as Annexure 8 and
when the record was not in the Record
Room, the Revenue Authority has no
power to disturb the entry of the revenue
record after 26 years. The courts below
have passed the order on presumption,
conjuncture and surmises, which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. On the basis
of aforesaid facts, the petitioners have
prayed to quash the impugned orders.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents have filed counter affidavit and
have denied the allegations levelled by the
petitioners and has submitted that father of
the contesting respondents 3 to 6 moved an
application dated 15.10.1986 for mutation
1 All. Soteem & Ors. Vs. Upper Commissioner (Judicial) IInd, Varanasi Division, Varanasi &
 Ors.
295
of his name in the revenue record on the
basis of order dated 23.12.1962 passed by
the Consolidation Officer and the order
dated 10.11.1964 passed by S.O.C in
respect of plot nos. 513 old no. 545 area 06-16, plot no. 515 old no. 544 area 0-8-12
and plot no. 518 old no. 545 area 0-17-12.
It was specifically mentioned in it that the
applicants/petitioners were in exclusive
possession of the aforesaid plot numbers,
copy of the same is annexed as Annexure
No. CA-1. Objection dated 29.10.1987
filed by the petitioner was based on
surmises and conjectures and there were no
details as to how the petitioners are the
owner of disputed land. It is settled law that
mere entry in revenue records does not
confer any right. The Consolidation Courts
held
that
father
of
the
contesting
respondents late Jodhi was a Bhumidhar
with non-transferable right of the disputed
land, while the petitioners had neither
declaration of any Court in their favour nor
they have produced any document in
support of their claim, a copy of the same is
annexed as Annexure No. CA-2. The
report of Naib Tehsildar Sadar dated
26.10.1991 is baseless and is a bogus
document as it has been prepared in cursory
manner. The order passed by respondent
nos. 1 and 2 are just and proper and they
are based on cogent grounds and are in
accordance with law. The order passed by
the Consolidation Courts were never
challenged by the petitioners before the
Competent Court, hence it became final
between the parties. On the basis of wrong
entries in the revenue record judgments of
the Competent Court cannot be nullified.
The contesting respondents are in exclusive
possession of the disputed land, a true
photocopies of the Khatauni No. 1408 -
1413 Fasli, Kisan Bahi and CH. Form No.
11 are enclosed as CA-3 to the counter
affidavit. The writ petition is devoid of any
merit and deserves to be dismissed with
cost.

9. The petitioners have filed rejoinder
affidavit, denying the averments of counter
affidavit and have repeated the same story
of the writ and have given parawise reply
and have said that the plot nos. 513, 515
and 518 old nos. 544 & 545 were recorded
in the name of petitioner's father late Ziyut
Bhandhan S/o Hanshraj as Sirdar from
1360 - 1371 Fasali. On 15.10.1986, father
of the respondent no. 3 to 6 Late Jodhi filed
an application under Section 33/39 of U.P.
L.R Act, 1901 and prayed for mutation of
his name in respect of plot no. 513, 515 and
518 after deletion of the name of the
petitioners on the basis of order date
23.12.1962
passed
by
Consolidation
Officer in Case No 13/1962 and order dated
10.11.1964 passed by Settlement Officer
Consolidation in Appeal No. 499 / 1790.
Late Jodi father of respondent nos. 3 to 6
arrayed Ziyut Bhandhan as respondent and
after his death his sons 1/1 to 1/4 Badri,
Ganga, Shiv Pujan, Sita Ram, Mangroo,
Jang Bahadur and Lal Ji. Application under
Section 33/39 of U.P.L.R Act was moved
after a delay of 22 years, it appears that
both the orders of Consolidation Officer
and Settlement Officer Consolidation were
forged because Ziyut Bandhan was never
served any notice or summon and he was
quite
unaware
about
the
aforesaid
proceedings. Jodhi was not entitled to move
the aforesaid application and it was barred
by Section 49 C.H. Act.

10. From the perusal of the record, it
has been established that the petitioners had
not challenged the order of S.O.C, hence it
has become final. There is no iota of
evidence that order of the S.O.C had been
challenged by the father of the petitioners
or by the petitioner in superior courts. On
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the basis of question-answer, the petitioners
have argued that no such file regarding
decision of S.O.C is available, but it is very
much clear from the order of S.D.O.
Ghazipur that after a lapse of time the
concerned file has been weeded out,
therefore it is not available in record room.
In that situation it can not be argued that
there was no such file and no such case was
decided by the C.O. and the S.O.C, during
the consolidation. The respondents' and
petitioners'
father
Jyodhi
and
Jeeyut
Bhandhan, had contested the case and
S.O.C passed an order about the plots in
suit in favour of Jyodhi, therefore it can not
be said that the case of the respondents is
barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act.
Contrary to it when no appeal/revision had
been preferred by Jeeyut Bhandhan or by
the petitioners, the dispute ended by the
order of S.O.C. during the consolidation
and when it was not challenged then it can
safely be concluded that the petitioners'
case is barred by Section 49 of the C.H.
Act. C.H Form 11 is available on record,
in which order of S.O.C. is available, which
confirms the right, title and interest of the
respondents' father and thereafter the
petitioners can not deny the title of the
respondents' father and the respondents. It
is settled law that entries in revenue record
are not conclusive proof and are not the
record of title, they are only for the
purposes to collect the revenue.

"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 can not
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. v. 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."

11. In this case after the order of
S.O.C available in C.H-11 (Part-II), it was
the duty of the concerned officials to get it
mutated and forwarded in future records,
but there is a note that this order is entered
here due to non-availability of space in
concerned Khata. Probably the mistake
started due to non recording of the order of
S.O.C in concerned Khata. Therefore, the
name of the petitioners' father continued in
C.H. 41, 45 and later on in Khatauni. The
petitioners could not place any order in
favour of their father of themselves. From
the order of S.O.C the right, title and
interest of the petitioners about the property
in suit had been extinguished and because it
was not challenged in any superior
competent court, it become final. If the
order of S.O.C was not forwarded in future
records, it would not create any right, title
or interest in favour of Jeeyut Bhandhan or
the petitioners and it shall also not create
any hindrance, estoppel or acquiescence
against the respondents. If an entry is
bogus, false and baseless it has no value in
the eyes of law, how long it is.

12.

The
petitioners
are
only
hammering and emphasizing on long
standing entry in favour of their father and
1 All. Soteem & Ors. Vs. Upper Commissioner (Judicial) IInd, Varanasi Division, Varanasi &
 Ors.
297
themselves, but since it is a wrong entry,
therefore how so much long, it would not
create any right to the petitioners and their
father, it would remain always inadmissible
and void ab-initio.

It would be expedient to describe
Sections 33/39 L.R. Act below.

"33. The annual registers. - (1)
Tire Collector shall maintain the record-ofrights, and for that purpose shall annually,
or at such longer intervals as the [State
Government] may prescribe, cause to be
prepared an amended [register mentioned
in Section 32.]

The [register] so prepared shall
be called the annual register.

[(2) The Collector shall cause to
be recorded in the annual register -

(a) all successions and transfers
in accordance with the provisions of
Section 35; or

(b) other changes that may take
place in respect of any land ; and shall also
correct all errors and omissions in
accordance with the provisions of Section
39 :

Provided that the power to record
a change under clause (b) shall not be
construed to include the power to decide a
dispute involving any question of title.]

(3)
[No
such
change
or
transaction shall be recorded without tire
order of the Collector or as hereinafter
provided, of
tire
Tahsildar or
[the
Kanungo].]

[(4) The Collector shall cause to
be prepared and supplied to every person
recorded as bhumidhar, whether with or
without transferable rights, assami or
Government Lessee a Kisan Bahi (Pass
book) which shall contain -

(a) such extract from the annual
register prepared under sub-section (1)
relating to all holdings of which he is so
recorded (either solely or jointly with
others);

(b) details of grants sanctioned to
him; and

(c) such other particulars as may
be prescribed :

Provided that in the case of joint
holdings it shall be sufficient for the
purpose of this sub-section of Kisan Bahi
(Pass book) is supplied to such one or more
of the recorded co-sharers as may be
prescribed.

(4A) The Kisan Bahi (Pass book)
referred to in sub-section (4) shall be
prepared in such manner and on payment
of such fee, which shall be realisable as
arrears of land revenue, as may be
prescribed.

(5) Every such person shall be
entitled, without payment of any extra fee,
to get any amendment made in the annual
register under sub-section (2) incorporated
in his Kisan bahi (Pass book.)]

(6) The State Government may
make rules to carry out the purposes of this
section, including, in particular , rules,
prescribing the mode of reception in
evidence,
and
of
proof
in
judicial
proceedings, of entries in the [Kisan Bahi
(Pass Book)], and the mode of its revision
and authentication up-to-date and for issue
of duplicate copies thereof, and tire fees, if
any, to be charged for any of the said
purposes.

(7) In this section, 'prescribed'
means prescribed by rules made by the
State Government.

(8) Nothing in sub-sections (4) to
(7) shall apply in relation to any area
which
is
either
under
consolidation
operations or under record operations.

39. Correction of mistakes in the
annual register. -(1) An application for
correction of any error or omission in the
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
annual register shall be made to the
Tahsildar.

(2) On receiving an application
under sub-section (1) or any error or
omission in the annual register coming to
his knowledge otherwise, the Tahsildar
shall make such inquiry as appears
necessary and then refer the case to the
Collector, who shall dispose it of, after
deciding the dispute in accordance with the
provisions of Section 40.]

[Provided that nothing in this
sub-section shall be construed to empower
the Collector to decide a dispute involving
any question of title.]

(3) The provisions of sub-sections
(1) and (2) shall prevail, notwithstanding
anything contained in the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act, 1947."

In
Mohd.
Anis
Vs.
The
Additional
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division, 2001 RD 761, it is held that
wherever and whenever on a basis of a
sale-deed, a person got his name recorded
in Khatauni and such sale deed is cancelled
by competent civil court, then the Collector
or S.D.O has no option but to correct the
Khatauni in pursuant to judgment, passed
by civil court provided such decree has
attained finality instead of relegating
proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.

In this case order of S.O.C is final
hence it was duty of the Collector to correct
the register of record - of - rights. Hence
the impugned orders are in conformity with
the aforementioned judgment.

In Sri Ram Vs. Gram Sabha
1997 R.D 549 on a complaint by Pradhan,
notices were issued to Sri Ram and Dulare
under Section 33 read with Section 39.
After approval from the Collector their
names were expunged from the records. In
revision, the Board held that the title to
land does not descend in consolidation
proceedings from heaven, like Manna and
Salwa of Biblical story. The revisionist
could not produced any evidence to show
that their title was duly recognized during
consolidation proceedings. It was also held
that the action should have been taken
either by the Collector appointed Under
Section 14 or by the acting Collector
appointed under Section 15 of the Act. In
the instant case it is difficult to know as to
who passed the decisive order. Revision
was however dismissed.

Applying the principle laid down
in the cited case it can be concluded that no
order regarding entry in favaour of the
petitioner's father Jeut Bandhan was passed
during the consolidation.

In Kamta Prasad Vs. Board of
Revenue, 1985 R.D 411 it was held that if
the consolidation authorities declared Smt.
Kanti Devi as co-tenure holder and the said
order could not be incorporated in the
revenue records, such orders do not become
non-est after de-notification under Section
52 (1) of C.H. Act. These orders cannot be
challenged before any civil or revenue
court because of the bar of Section 49 of
the said Act. After the close of the
consolidation operations, the Collector can
not refuse to do it merely on the ground
that consolidation authorities themselves
ought to have carried out the work of
Amaldaramad.

The facts of the case in hand and
of the cited case are quite similar, therefore
the principles laid down in the cited case
apply in favour of the respondents.

In Nandhu Vs. Ram Jatan 1987
R.D, 274, it is held that only such entries
made during consolidation operations,
which have been legally and correctly
made carry presumption of correctness.
Where an apparent mistake has crept in
C.H. Form 23, it can be rectified in
proceedings under Section 33 and 39 of the
L.R. Act, because the duty of maintaining
1 All. Soteem & Ors. Vs. Upper Commissioner (Judicial) IInd, Varanasi Division, Varanasi &
 Ors.
299
correct record lies on the Collector. The
principles laid down in this precedent is
also in support of the respondents case.

13. Another ground has been taken by
the petitioners that when the order was
passed
by
the
S.D.O.
and
the
Commissioner,
second
successive
consolidation proceeding was going on,
hence they were not competent to entertain
the petition and pass the order.

14. It is argued by respondent's
counsel that under sections 33/39 of the
L.R. Act, it is the duty of the Collector and
Tehsildar,
to
correct
all
errors
and
omissions
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of Section 39 and to maintain
annual register of the record- of- rights and
if any application is moved for correction
of error or omission, it would be
entertained and suitable order shall be
passed. It is made clear that by the
impugned orders both the courts below
have not decided a dispute involving any
question of title. They have only corrected
the errors and omissions according to the
orders passed during the first consolidation
operation. No question of title remained to
be
decided
in
second
consolidation
operation.

15. It would be noteworthy that by
passing the impugned order, the lower
courts
were
not
interfering
in
the
jurisdiction of the consolidation courts as
after termination of the consolidation
proceedings, it was the duty of the revenue
authorities to remove the errors and correct
the record-of-right and to maintain the
correct records. It was also their duty to
comply with the orders of the consolidation
courts passed during the consolidation
proceedings. Why the order of S.O.C was
not entered into the right place, has also
been discussed. Initially the petitioners
were not the party to the suit before the
C.O. and S.O.C, therefore how the
petitioners could say that their father had
not received the notice and had not
contested the case in consolidation courts.
It appears that this denial is for the sake of
denial and is a bald denial without any
cogent reason. Thus it can not be said that
their father had not participated in the
proceeding/litigation with the father of the
respondents, therefore, such denial has no
legal sanctity and the existence of the file
can not been denied.

16. At one point of time the
petitioner's counsel argued that the revenue
authorities had no right to pass the
impugned order, as the second time
consolidation proceedings were going on,
when the impugned orders were passed. On
the other hand they say that property in suit
is Chak out, if the property is Chak out as
alleged by the petitioners, then it becomes
out of the scope and jurisdiction of the
consolidation courts. In that case also the
revenue authorities had right to pass the
impugned order under Section 33/39 of the
L.R. Act.

17. It transpires that both the orders
had been passed after giving proper
opportunity of hearing of evidence during
the consolidation proceedings title of the
petitioners' father had not been found
correct and the property in suit were
ordered to be recorded in the name of
respondents'
father.

Order
of
the
Consolidation
Court
have
not
been
challenged in any competent authority.
The order was not forwarded and entered
into future record, therefore, if the revenue
authority found fit to correct the record in
accordance
of
the
order
of
the
consolidation court, there is no bar at all.
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. The S.D.O. in his order has referred
the order of S.O.C. dated 10.11.1964, which
has
been
inscribed
as
Amaldaramad
regarding Arazi No. 545-C in the name of
Jyodhi S/o Charittar, rejecting the name of
the petitioners' father Jeeyut Bandhan S/o
Hans Raj.

19. It is evident from the question
answer that the file decided by the S.O.C had
been weeded out from which it is clear that a
case between the parties had been decided in
favour of Jyodhi. S.D.O has also referred
that as per the report of land Inspector dated
26.04.1987 after the death of Jyodhi
respondents Murali etc. sons of late Jyodhi
are in possession.

20. Learned S.D.O. has also referred a
citation 1988 A.W.C Page 77, in which it is
held that an application can be maintained
under Section 33/39 of the C.H Act for
correction of record based on the basis of
order passed by the Consolidation Court. In
this precedent, it has also been held that there
is no time limit regarding correction of record
on the basis of the order passed by the
Consolidation Court.

21. In this regard, respondents' counsel
has also cited 1986 R D Page 206 - 209, in
which it has also been held that there is no
time limits for correction of the record.

22. The order of the S.D.O. was
challenged in the Court of Commissioner
Varanasi Mandal, Varansi, in revision which
has affirmed the order of S.D.O. The
petitioner's counsel referred some judicial
precedents and argued that since the name of
the revisionist was recorded as Bhumidhar,
with non transferable rights, therefore, their
names could only be challenged by way of
regular suit.

23. Contrary to that, on the basis of
judicial precedents and arguments of the
respondents it had been argued that the
impugned orders have been passed on the
basis of the order of C.O. dated 23.12.1962
and S.O.C dated 10.11.1964, hence the orders
are factually and legally correct and are not
liable to be interfered with and it was duty of
the Collector and Tehsildar to correct the
errors and omissions in the Record - of -
Rights.

24. Thus, it is concluded that the right
title and interest between the parties
predecessors
had
already
been
finally
adjudicated by the C.O and the S.O.C during
the consolidation proceeding, which ended in
favour of the respondents' father Jyodhi and it
was incorporated in Aakar Patra 11 (part II).
Due to insufficient space, it was not
incorporated in the concerned Khata, which
created doubt and the orders of the C.O and
S.O.C were not forwarded and entered in
C.H. Farm No. 41 and 45 and later on in
Khatauni, thus, it is concluded that there was
no basis of the entries in favour of Jeeyut
Bandhan and thereafter the name of the
petitioners were also wrongly entered in the
Revenue Records, mere on the basis of
baseless and illegal entries, no right accrues
to the petitioners. Thus, order of the Courts
below are found to be correct and need no
interference. Therefore, petition lacks merit
and liable to be dismissed.

25.

The
petition
is
dismissed
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.