Full Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16.11.1987 expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16.8.1989 affirming the said order in the revision.
2. The consolidation proceedings started in the village Bhathwa, Tahsil Padrauna. district Deoria. The consolidation Lekhpal submitted report stating therein that the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 24.4.1982 left the plot No. 846 area 0.14, plot No. 847 area 0.17 and plot No. 848 area 0.07 decinal, for Abadi purpose. This order was incorporated in C.H. Form 23, Part 3. These plots were given new No. as plot No. 343 area 0.35 decimal. In C.H. Form 41, it was indicated as plot No. 343 area 0.38 and recorded as Naveen Parti and was marked in Khata No. 267 but latter on a fraudulent entry was made making it Khata No. 97 in C. H. Form No. 45. This plot No. 343 area 0.35 decimal was shown in Khata No. 97 and the name of petitioner was recorded. In the report he submitted that this entry was totally fraudulent. On submission of this report, the Consolidation Officer gave notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application that he may be given time to produce evidence. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application and after looking to the record, found that forgery has been committed in C.H. Form 41 and C.H. Form 45, and directed to make correction in the entries. The petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering in detail the report of the Consolidation Lekhpal and other material on record affirmed the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the entries were collusively manipulated and they were fictitious. He dismissed the revision by the Impugned order dated 16.8.1989 and further directed that action be taken against all the persons responsible for making fictitious entries. This order has been challenged in the instant writ petition.
3. I have heard Shri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Upendra Mishra as well as Vishram Tiwari, learned counsel forrespondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the village was denotified under Section 52 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 16.4.1983 and after the denotification, the Consolidation Officer had no Jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of making correction of entries in the revenue record, or deciding the rights of the parties in regard to the land which was under consolidation operation.
5. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Consolidation Officer has not determined the rights of any of the parties. The Consolidation Officer had passed the order on 24.4.1982 in respect of land in dispute leaving it for Abadi purpose. The order of the Consolidation Officer was final. This order was incorporated in C.H. Form 23, Part 3. Subsequent C.H. Form was to be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, in C.H. Form No. 41 it was noted that plotswhich were left for Abadi purpose were given new No. as 343. Latter on, in C.H. Form No- 45 it was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer has only corrected the mistake which was apparent in subsequent C. H. Forms. C.H. Form 45 should have been prepared in accordance with the C.H. Form 23, Part 3. If there was mistake apparent on it , it could have been corrected by the Consolidation Officer under Section 42A of the aforesaid Act. The Consolidation Officer does not cease to have jurisdiction to make such correction. Even otherwise, if any fraudulent entry is found to have been made in the revenue record, it can be corrected by the Consolidation Authorities.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, then vehemently urged that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to lead evidence that he was a tenant of land in dispute. It is not denied that the petitioner was given notice by the Consolidation Officer. He moved an application before the Consolidation Officer to permit him to lead evidence. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application taking the view that he is not determining the rights of the parties but only looking as to whether the entries have been made fraudulently. The petitioner thereafter filed certain carbon copies before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which were held inadmissible as the original documents were not filed. The petitioner has not stated that he was recorded in the revenue record as a tenant on the basis of certain rights or order passed by any authority. He has not further denied that in C.H. Form 23, Part 3. the Consolidation Officer had passed the order dated 24.4.1982 in respect of plot No. 846, 847 and 848 keeping them for Abadi purpose. These plots were numbered as 343 on which the name of the petitioner has been recorded in C.H. Form No. 45. In case the petitioner had any right and title over plot Nos. 846 to 848 and his name was entered Into Khatauni as tenant, he could have filed documentary evidence, but he has failed to do so. He has not disclosed source of his title.
7. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is agricultural labourer and belongs to Scheduled Caste, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindarl Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any objection before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer had only corrected the entries in C.H. Form 45 which were to be conformed with C.H. Form No. 23 Part 3. The petitioner having not raised dispute regarding the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he cannot raise this question herein in relation to correction of the entries.
9. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissedwith costs.