GHANSHYAM Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAUNPUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOMETIMES Court gets an impression that every thing is permissible in the consolidation proceedings. Petitioner has come with a fantastic case that in the year 1979 some order was passed in his favour and thereafter he went to sleep for about 28 years. In the year 2007, petitioner filed some application under Rule 109-A of the Rules framed under U.P.C.H. Act for implementation of the order of 1979 and for its mutation. If in fact some order had been passed in favour of petitioner in the year 1979, then either it would have been implemented promptly in normal course or petitioner should have taken steps for implementation/ mutation of the said order immediately. It is quite clear that petitioner has forged some certified copy of a non-existent order after weeding out of original records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-VI to the writ petition, which is a question-answer dated 27.12.2007 showing pendency of the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of U.P.C.H. Rules. The said application filed on 26.11.2007 is liable to be dismissed forthwith. Accordingly, no mandamus can be issued for directing the consolidation officer to decide the said application. In appropriate cases when people come forward with manufactured certified copies of non-existent orders after more than 12 years, FIR against such person must be lodged, however in the instant case, this direction is not being given.

(2.) WRIT petition is dismissed.