JAHID HUSSAIN Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.A. Ansari for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Sinha for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Revenue Court dated 21/24.9.1991, dismissing the suit under section 229B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and orders dated 30.10.1992 and 14.3.1996, dismissing the appeals of the petitioner from the aforesaid orders.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 82 of 1990) under section 229B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, for recording his name as bhumidhar with transferable right over plot No. 134 (area 3 -9 -18 bighas) situated in village Chilkana, pargana Sultanpur, district Saharanpur. It has been stated that the land in dispute was the property of the petitioner. During consolidation, it was recorded in his name and a chak was carved out in his name, but by making a forgery, the name of Jainath was recorded over it by the alleged order dated 8.2.1967. On the basis of that forged entry, Jainath executed a sale -deed dated 12.8.1971 of the land in dispute, in favour of defendant -1.

(3.) I have heard Counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 27(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that all entries in the record of right prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub -section 1 shall be presumed to be true, until contrary is proved. Therefore, entries made in final consolidation record can be proved to be incorrect in the proceedings under U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In this case there is allegation that the name of Jainath was entered by making forgery in consolidation record. On such allegations, the suit was maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to prove that final consolidation records have been forged. Suit under section 229 -B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was maintainable.