M.P.Singh - (1.) -A person who has polluted his hands by being a party or privy to a fraudulent action shall not be allowed to approach the fountain of justice with his own infamy on his lips and obtain relief on the strength of such a dirty action.
(2.) A forged order dated 28-11-1975 alleged to have been passed by the Consolidation Officer, Civil Lines, Allahabad, is the foundation of the present writ petition. Categorical findings have been recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that this order has never been passed by any Consolidation Officer in any proceeding and is the result of fraud played by the petitioner in collusion with staff of the consolidation authorities. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 24-12-1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh in the light of the observations made therein. It may be stated here that in pursuance of this, a fresh order has been passed by the Consolidation Officer on 27-6-1988 holding that no order was passed on 28-11-1975 by the Consolidation Officer and the said order is a forged one. Against this order an appeal lies before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. In my opinion the writ petition has now become infructuous but since counsel for the petitioner has argued a number of points, the same are being dealt with. The petitioner's case is that in case no. 10/137, Ram Jatan and others v. Mahadeo and others an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 28-11-1975 regarding Khatas No. 86, 99 and 100 of village Usmanpur, Pargana Mah, Tehsil Handia, District Allahabad He moved an application on 15-7-1986 under Section 52 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for giving effect to the order dated 28-11-1975. It was allowed ex-parte on 6-9-1986. As soon as the opposite parties came to know about this order, they moved an application on 18-9-1986 for setting aside the said order which was based on a forged order. It was allowed on 19-9-1986 and the ex-parte order dated 6-9-1986 was set aside. Against this order the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer on 29-9-1986 for recalling the same which was rejected on 17-10-1986. This order has become final as it has not been challenged before the Settlement Officer Consolidation or the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Simultaneously against the same order dated 19-9-1986 the petitioner filed a Revision No. 11/87. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 24-12-1987, after quashing the order dated 6-9-1986 remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer to decide afresh. The Consolidation Officer has decided the same on 27-6-1988. By means of the amendment application the petitioner has sought for quashing of this order of the Consolidation Officer as well but this application has been rejected by me on the ground that an appeal lies against that order. The Consolidation Officer was very much within his jurisdiction in deciding the matter on 27-6-1988 as there was no stay order granted by this Court after 13-3-1988.
(3.) HEARD Sri A. C. Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. It is one of these rare cases where there is no difficulty in confirming the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24-12-1987 and of the Consolidation Officer dated 19-9-1986 and 27-6-1988 in which it has been held that the petitioner has committed forgery in bringing into existence an order alleged to have been passed on 28-11-1975 by some Consolidation Officer.;