- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Islam and Sri Ram Krishna Mishra, who have appeared for the contesting respondents. Both the writ petitions having been heard together are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) IN first writ petition, i. e. , Writ Petition No. 52332 of 2002, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 3rd September, 2002 passed by the District Magistrate on the report submitted by the Officer IN-charge, Revenue Record Room. IN second writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by Consolidation Officer, order dated 24th March, 2003 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Brief facts, necessary for deciding both the writ petitions, are; an application under Rule 109 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer praying for giving effect to the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 14th July, 1969 passed in Case No. 17, under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case of the petitioner was that the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14th July, 1969 directed for recording the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, Nisar Ahmad, in place of Noor Mohammad, deceased on Chak No. 57, but only the name of Nisar Ahmad is continuing in the revenue records, hence the original records be summoned and the name of the petitioner be recorded. The Consolidation Officer summoned the original record and called for the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer after perusing the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer and the original records of the case came to the conclusion that there was no order in favour of the petitioner and her name was interpolated subsequently on the record, statements and the application, which is clear from the documents itself as the interpolations were made by different ink and by erasing some writings. The Consolidation Officer after recording the said findings rejected the application under Rule 109-A. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by Consolidation Officer. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Officer In-charge of Revenue Record Room submitted a report dated 3rd September, 2002 to the District Magistrate mentioning that in Khata No. 73 Amal Daramad dated 12th January, 1974 has been made in the name of the petitioner, which is nothing but a forgery in the record since in Khata No. 73 there was no Amal Daramad of the name of the petitioner, which is apparent from the extract of the revenue entries taken from the revenue records on 30-1-2002 and 28- 4- 2001. The Officer In-charge recommended that the Amal Daramad of the petitioner's name has been brought on the record by forgery. The District Magistrate approved the said report on 3-9-2002, which recommended cancellation of the Amal Daramad of the petitioner's name in Khata No. 73 and Khata No. 56 and also recommended for lodging a First Information Report under Section 420 of I. P. C. The first writ petition is a writ petition which has been filed against the said order dated 3-9-2002. In the writ petition filed against the order dated 3-9-2002, an interim order was passed by this Court on 5-12-2002. The appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22nd August, 2001 was heard and rejected on 24th March, 2003. It is to be noted that before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner also prayed that the appeal and the application under Rule 109-A U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn but the said request was not acceded to. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which too was rejected on 29th August, 2003. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by consolidation authorities, contended that it was not open for the consolidation authorities to have gone into the alleged forgery in the proceedings dated 14th July, 1969 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. He submits that there was no opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said proceedings and the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities were without any opportunity.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order of the District Magistrate, dated 3-9-2002, contended that the said order was also passed on the report of the Officer In-charge, Revenue Records without any opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that the recommendations dated 3-9-2002 were both for cancelling the Amal Daramad and for lodging the First Information Report, which could not have been done without any opportunity or notice to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, refuting the submissions of Counsel for the petitioner, contended that petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity. He submits that it was the respondent No. 4 who succeeded to Noor Mohammad, father of respondent No. 4 and it was the respondent No. 4, whose name was recorded during consolidation proceedings in the revenue records. He submits that in consolidation proceedings no objection was filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that there was joint objection filed, has been specifically denied. It is submitted that there was no joint objection and respondent No. 4 alone was recorded. The Counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the Consolidation Officer had every jurisdiction to record finding with regard to forgery in the order dated 14th July, 1969 on the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. With regard to the order of the District Magistrate dated 3rd September, 2002, it has been contended that the said order was passed after perusing the record of the Officer In- charge, Revenue Record Room and the District Magistrate was fully competent to direct for lodging of the First Information Report with regard to forgery committed in the revenue records.;