RAJ MURAT Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which calls for determination in this case is whether there has been a forgery in the order dated 27-10-1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding three revisions.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that three revisions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27-10-1972 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the matter relating to allotment of chak under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. One of the revisions was filed by the petitioner, namely, Raj Murat, second by Bhagwat Deen and Lal Chand and the third by Mata Prasad and others. According to the petitioner, all the three revisions, namely, Revisions No 3199/1106; 415/1142 and 461/1141 were allowed whereas the case of the contesting respondent is that they were dismissed. After a lapse of several years, the dispute arose whether the revisions, aforesaid, were allowed or dismissed and whether there has been tampering with the record of the revisions. An enquiry was got conducted in the matter. Statement of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was also recorded. On 30th June 1980, the Joint Director of Consolidation passed an order directing that Bhagwati Deen and Lal Chand be allowed to remain in possession as allotted by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and, further, the file be transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for further enquiry. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 5494 of 1980. THE aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 13-2-1981 and this Court directed the Joint Director of Consolidation to carry out the enquiry himself or to refer it to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, In the meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo.

(3.) SRI V. D. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 contended that in the enquiry all relevant authorities, including the then Deputy Director of Consolidation, who had passed the order dated 27-10- 1972, were examined. After enquiry, the impugned order dated 11-5-1982 has been passed by the respondent no. 1 after considering each and every place of material document, including the misilband register etc. He urged that on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, it has been proved that in the earlier order dated 27-10-1972, there had been manipulation and fabrication in getting the revision allowed. Therefore, there does not arise any question of interference in the writ jurisdiction by this Court in the present writ petition.