- (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: "PRAYER Under the above -said facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that after summoning the file of order dated 22.11.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur, in Revision No. 115/118/82; Manohar Vs. Sukru, under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act or any file of any order of Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur or Consolidation Officer, Sitapur, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 22.11.1991, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur, if any, in Revision No. 115/118/82; Manohar Vs. Sukru, under Section 48 U.P. C.H. Act or any order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur, passed against the petitioners in any sort of proceedings and the petitioners may be afforded an opportunity in the proceedings. Further, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus may be issued directing the consolidation authorities as well as revenue authorities concerned to make an enquiry and take appropriate action as deem fit and proper. Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that by the order dated 24.8.2009 in proceedings under Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules (for short, the CH Rules) an order dated 22.11.1991, alleged to have been passed in Revision No. 115/118/82 has been given effect to. The case of the petitioner is that the order dated 22.11.1991 is a farzi order inasmuch as no such proceedings took place and the order has been manufactured. It is also admitted to the petitioner that he has preferred an appeal against the order dated 24.08.2009 passed in proceedings under Rule 109 of the CH Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a report has been obtained from the record -room, which indicates that the file pertaining to the case (Revision No. 115/118/82) has been weeded out. He further submits that since the order dated 24.8.2009 in proceedings under Rule 109 has been passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation (for short, the DDC), hence this writ petition is the only remedy available to him, as the order passed by the DDC dated 22.11.1991 cannot be set aside in the appeal that has been preferred by him, which is directed against the order passed in proceedings under Rule 109 of the UP CH Rules. Lastly, he suybmits that entry was incorporated in the revenue record after a period of 18 years from the date of the alleged order dated 22.11.1991. This, he says, is patently illegal and contrary to law as laid down by the judgement reported in 2009 RLT 672: Ghanshyam Vs. District Magistrate, Jaunpur, District Jaunpur, and another. He has further submitted that the complaints have been made to the Consolidation Commissioner as well as the District Magistrate/District Director of Consolidation, Sitapur, but no action has been taken.
(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as also the material on record, it is admitted that there is a report from the record -room saying that the file pertaining to the case, which has been decided by the order dated 22.11.1991, has been weeded out. In view of this admitted positio0n, the first relief claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted.;