SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition on 10.01.2014 following order (on the order sheet) was passed: "Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for petitioner, who has also filed supplementary affidavit, Sri Janardan Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties No.3 to 7 (opposite party No.2, father of opposite parties No.3 to 7 is reported to be dead) and Sri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel, who has filed impleadment/ intervention application on behalf of Smt. Rajrani. Judgment reserved. "
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 13.07.1998 passed by Collector/ District D.D.C. Gonda in Revision No.45, Sri Ram Sewak and others and Sri Madho Raj. Dispute relates to about 18 bighas agricultural land of which Sri Jagannath was tenure holder. The property in dispute is situate in village Bharampur, khata No.83. Learned counsel for the parties stated that Sri Jagannath died on 08.10.1993. Petitioner filed some application under Rule 109 of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Rules claiming that on 03.02.1968, some order had been passed in his favour in Case No.936, Madho Raj Vs. Jagannath under Section 9 -A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by C.O. Copy of the application has not been filed and on inquiry from court, learned counsel for petitioner could not even give the date on which the said application may have been filed. It may be assumed that it was filed in 1993 -1994. The application of the petitioner was allowed on 26.05.1994 and his name was entered over the agricultural land of Jagannath. According to the petitioner's case, consolidation proceedings were concluded in the area in question on issuance of notification under Section 52 of the Act in 1970. It is inconceivable that for about 25 years, petitioner would have remained silent and would not have taken any steps for incorporation of the order dated 03.02.1968 in the revenue record in case such an order had in fact been passed. In about 99% cases orders passed during consolidation proceedings on the question of title are mentioned in C.H. Form No.45 and after conclusion of consolidation revenue records are maintained in accordance therewith. If in 1% of cases such orders are not mutated in the revenue records a party in whose favour order is passed immediately after conclusion of consolidation applies for its incorporation in the revenue records. It is mentioned in the order by the D.D.C. that order dated 26.05.1994 under Rule 109 was passed on the basis of consent of Jagnnath. As admittedly Jagannath had already died on 08.10.1993, hence there was no question of any compromise. In the impugned order dated 13.07.1998, it is also mentioned that earlier also in the year 1963 petitioner had got a fake file manufactured and got his name entered in the revenue record, which was subsequently set aside on 07.09.1993. Accordingly, petitioner committed forgery twice. The matter had been got inquired by the D.D.C. through City Magistrate.
(3.) THE report of the City Magistrate dated 12.01.1998 is Annexure -4 to the writ petition. It is detailed/ exhaustive report showing that order dated 03.02.1968 was stark forgery and that the alleged signatures of Jagannath did not appear to be the signatures by a person of 97 years of age as this was his age at that time. It was also pointed out that the vakalatnama which was filed was shown to have been issued by District Stamp Vendors Committee, Gonda whose President Sri Sushil Chandra Gupta had given statement on 22.12.1997 that the said Committee was constituted in 1983 and in the year 1968, there was no question of issuing/ selling any vakalatnama containing seal/ name of the said Committee. In this regard reference may be made to the authority of the Supreme Court reported in A.V.P. Society Vs. Government of A.P., 2007 (4) SCC 221 cited by learned counsel for opposite party holding that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. One of the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that against the order dated 26.05.1994 three proceedings were taken by opposite parties No.2 to 7. One was a revision against the said order, another, a recall application filed before the Consolidation Officer and the third, a complaint on which the impugned order dated 13.07.1998 was passed.;