(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue on 15.9.2009 rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioner has been perused. The Board of Revenue has recorded a find of fact based on revenue and consolidation entries in the basic year Kahatauni entries. Jamuna, son of Bihari was not recorded as tenure holder. Neither Jamuna nor Bihari had any land in the concerned village. With the connivance of the Consolidation Officer and Lekhpal, the petitioner has got his name recorded in Aakar Patra 41 & 45. The entries were fabricated and not genuine. The consolidator had reported on 15.12.2004 that the land was Naveen Parti land.T he entries were made in different ink and varified by different signatures. Under these facts and circumstances, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision seeking correction of records. The order is a reasoned and speaking order. The case of the petitioner has been dealt with in detail. The order is based on findings recorded on the basis of entries in the revenue and consolidation records.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Jhingai Vs. DDC (RD 1991 page 136), a decision dated 2.3.1990 of Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2998 of 1980, Smt. Dulari Devi Vs. Janardan Singh and others and a decision rendered on 19.1.2006 by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16399 of 1984, Gorakh Rai Vs. Civil Judge, Azamgarh and others to strengthen his case. Here is a case where rights are being created on the basis of fabricated and forged entry . Fraud vitiates everything. Law is settled that the forged and fabricated entries can be expunged at any stage from the revenue record. The Court has gone to the extent that no opportunity of hearing is required for expunging the forged or fabricated entry.
(3.) Accordingly, no interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.