NAGINA Vs. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION PADRAUNA DISTRICT DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 16-11-1987 expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 16-8-1989 affirming the said order in the revision.

(2.) THE consolidation proceedings started in the village Bhathwa, Tahsil Padrauna, district Deoria. THE consolida tion Lekhpal submitted report stating therein that the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 24-4-1982 left the plot No. 846 area 0. 14, plot No. 347 area 0. 17 and plot No. 348 area 0. 07, for Abadi purpose. This order was incorporated in C. H. Form 23, Part 3. THEse plots were given new No. as plot No. 343 area 0. 35 decimal. In C. H. Form 41 it was indicated as plot No. 343 area 0. 38 and recorded as Naveen Parti and was marked in Khata No. 267 but latter on a fraudulent entry was made making it Khata No. 97 in C. H. Form No. 45. This plot No. 343 area 0. 35 decimal was shown in Khata No. 97 and the name of petitioner was recorded. In the report he submitted that this entry was totally fraudulent. On submission of this report, the Consolida tion Officer gave notice to the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application that he may be given time to produce evidence. THE Consolidation Officer rejected the ap plication and after (sic) to the record, found that forgery has been committed in C. H. Form 41 and C. H. Form 45, and directed to make correction in the entries. THE petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering in detail the report of the Con solidation Lekhpal and other material on record affirmed the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer that the entries were collusively manipulated and they were fictitious. He dismissed the revision by the impugned order dated 16-8-1989 and further directed that action be taken against all the persons responsible for making fictitious entries. This order has been challenged in the instant writ peti tion.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Consolidation Officer has not determined the rights of any of the parties. The Consolidation Officer had passed the order on 24-4-1982 in respect of land in dispute leaving it for Abadi pur pose. The order of the Consolidation Of ficer was final. This order was incor porated in C. H. Form 23, Part 3. Sub sequent C. H. form was to be prepared accordingly. Thereafter, in C. H. Form No. 41 it was noted that plots which were left for Abadi purpose were given new No. as 343. Latter on, in C. H. Form No. 45 it was recorded in the name of the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer has only cor rected the mistake which was apparent in subsequent C. H. Forms. C. H. Form 45 should have been prepared in accordance with the C. H. Form 23, Part 3. If there was mistake apparent on it. it could have been corrected by the Consolidation Officer under Section 42-A of the aforesaid Act. The Consolidation Officer does not cease to have jurisdiction to make such correc tion. Even otherwise, if any fraudulent entry is found to have been made in the revenue record, it can be corrected by the Consolidation Authorities.