Allahabad High Court
Sunder And Ors. vs State Of ... on 1 October, 2013
Bench: Sibghat Ullah Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
(jdugement reserved on 23.9.2013)
(judgement delviered on 01.10.2013)
Court No. - 21
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 532 of 2013
Petitioner :- Sunder And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Consolidation Commissioner U.P.Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rana Mrityunjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.
Heard Shri R.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned additional C.S.C. for the respondents. Through this writ petition orders dated 26.02.2013 and 28.02.2013 passed by Director of consolidation, Lucknow (Camp Hardoi) have been challenged.
Petitioners had filed application under section 42 of U.P.C.H. Act taking a fantastic case that on 20.01.1958, i.e. more that 50 years before Assistant Consolidation Officer had passed some order in their favour which could not be carried out in the records, hence, it must be incorporated therein. It was alleged that through the order of 1958(05.5.1958) the name of Jawahar was directed to be scored off from Khata No.80 and at his place name of Mendai predecessor in interest of the petitioners was directed to be entered. C.O. Hardoi on 26.02.2013 gave report that second round of consolidation in the area in question started through notification under section 4(2) of the Act on 26.7.1986, however, that notification was withdrawn by another notification under section 6 of the Act on 31.12.2004. In the second round of consolidation which remained pending from 1986 to 2004 no objection was filed by petitioners for recording their names. The application was filed on 12.6.2012. Through order dated 28.02.2013 Joint Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (Camp Hardoi) rejected the application accepting the report dated 26.02.2013.
In case, some order had been passed in the year 1958, it would have been incorporated in the revenue records. In any case, it is inconceivable that if due to any inadvertence the order was not carried out in the records, petitioners on their ancestor would have remained silent for 54 years. It was purely a fraud which was being played by the petitioners by forging the order of 1958 and seeking mutation of their names on the basis of the said order. Interestingly, coy of the said order has not been annexed along with the writ petition.
Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence, it is dismissed.
The Joint Director of consolidation Lucknow camp Hardoi may consider as to whether it is appropriate to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners for forging the copy of order and misusing the process of court on the basis of the same.
Annexure 4 to the writ petition is copy of a report dated 20.6.2012 given by the consolidator to the A.C.O. on the petitioner's application under Rule 109 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The A.C.O. probably did not agree with the report and mentioned at the bottom of the report that thorough investigation was utmost essential. Criminal as well as disciplinary proceedings be also initiated against the consolidator who gave the report dated 20.6.2012.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri Vinay Bhushan, learned Additional C.S.C.
order date :- 01.10.2013
mks
