Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) In this case original records were summoned which were perused by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. Photostat copies of the relevant records consisting of relevant misilband register and case diary were supplied by the learned standing counsel to the learned counsel for the petitioner and were placed on record also. The prayer in this writ petition is that a writ of mandamus may be issued commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. State of U.P. through Collector, Mathura and Tehsildar, Mathura to implement the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.3.1998 and correct the revenue records accordingly. Copy of the order dated 31.3.1998 is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Through the said order Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mathura set aside the orders of the courts below dated 17.7.1996 and 7.7.1992. Through the said order name of the petitioner was directed to be entered in the revenue record. In the judgment it is mentioned that patta was granted to the petitioner in the year 1960 and name of the petitioner continued to be recorded in khasras from 1377 to 1390 fasli. However, in para-6 of the writ petition it is mentioned that the order of approval of patta was not recorded in the revenue records. It has also been stated in para-9 of the writ petition that through notification under Section-6 of U.P.C.H. Act consolidation proceedings were dropped on 22.9.2003. It has further been stated that order of D.D.C. dated 31.3.1998 was not mutated in the revenue records. It is alleged that for the first time application for the said purpose was given by the petitioner on 13.12.2004, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has not been stated that in what manner the said application was given. It is alleged that on 25.10.2008 another application was given to Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Mathura, photo copy of the said application has been annexed as Annexure-IV containing the receipt of acknowledgement. Accordingly, it is proved that it was only for the first time on 25.10.2008 that application was given and no application prior to that was given. However, in-case some order had been passed in favour of the petitioner, it would have been either promptly mutated in the revenue records or petitioner would have promptly filed application for the said purpose.
(3.) The alleged order of D.D.C. dated 31.3.1998, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition contains the revision number as 2025 of 1998 and name of parties as Vimla Devi v. Gaon Sabha. In the original misilband register on page 165 revision no. 2025 is shown as of Horam and others v. Amar Chand decided on 12.12.1997. There is overwriting on revision nos. 2024, 2025 and 2026 in the Register. The number of revision of Horam has been converted into 2034. However, the sequence is quite correct. Revision no.2035 which is shown after revision no.2034 in the Register is titled as Ram Baksh v. Megh Shyam and others. In the case diary of 31.3.1998 several cases are listed but revision no.2025 is not mentioned. Accordingly, it is proved that the order has been manufactured and petitioner had not filed any revision. Revision no.2025 is related to another village and parties in the said revision were different. Date of decision is also different.;