JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are :On 3.7.82 Tahsildar reports that in C.H. Form 45 there are 42 unauthorised entries as it respects village Mati, Pergana Bijnor, Tehsil Lucknow. The persons whose names are entered are not residents of the village; they are not in possession. The nature of land of disputed khata Nos. 783 and 775 is really Talab and Usar. Sub-Divisional Officer commences enquiry u/s 33/39 Land Revenue Act. He calls for a report from Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and from Record Room. The former reports that all judicial record has been consigned. The Record Keeper states that no such files relating to enquired cases have ever been received. Things show potential mischief and Additional Collector consents on 19.9.82 to allow all 42 entries to expung. Sri Pancham Lal, learned Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 22.9.82 directs expunction of names recorded by forged entries from C.H. Form 45: khata Nos. 783 and 775 and re-entry of land as Usar and Talab. The land is to vest in Gaon Sabha. A tabulation below the order shows plot numbers, their area noted against the names to be expunged. 2. Chandra Dutts Mishra's: 8 men, lodge a revision in Contonment's on 14.11.82 They have filed 4 separate revision No. 161, 166 and 153/ 1982-83. Sri S.K. Lakhtakia learned Additional Commissioner, Lucknow by his order dated 22.4.82 submits a reference setting aside Sub-Divisional Officer's 22.9.82 and to remand the case for decision afresh after affording an opportunity to the revisionists to set forth their case. The reference is up for consideration and decision. 3. Heard the counsel for and against the revision; perused the record. 4. The revision lodged in Commissioner's has 19 paragraph of grievance to complain against Sub-Divisional Officer. All the grounds emphatically relate to procedural irregularity; non service of notice, summary nature of proceeding time barred report, non-compliance of paragraph 128 Gaon Samaj Manual and absence of jurisdiction because entry is quite old. I do not find any whisper of a description how revisionist came by to title of the land. The Additional Commissioner's order is dated 22.6.83. On 15.11.91 in written arguments 8 years have elapsed they have moved from a non existent basis of a title to supply all essential particulars. They have now set forth that they were occupancy tenants recorded in khatauni 1356 and 1359 Fasli. The Additional Commissioner's order is dated 22.6.83. On 15.11.91 in written arguments 8 years have elapsed they have moved from a non existent basis of a title to supply all essential particulars. They have now set forth that they were occupancy tenants recorded in khatauni 1356 and 1359 Fasli. They became sirdar in consequence of Abolition on date of vesting. It beats me, but not the counsel for revisionist, that if this is so, why they did not set up this case in full proportion in Commissioner's. I wonder they could think of it only in between the Commissioner's 22.6.83 and written submission on 15.11.91. I am of opinion that grounds of revision do not square at all with written argument. The later attempt to supply all details of origin of title is lame and after thought. No fresh determination of rights on basis of khatauni of 1356 and 1359 Fasli can be attempted here: it may be that this is further evidence of manufacture in furtherance of entry in C.H. Form 45. If genuine, the supposed effect has been washed off by consolidation. In absence of mere evidence and summary nature of enquiry, I can do no more than speculate what is all this about. 5. In the grounds of revision in four pages there is no statement of how the title originates; how devolution came by to revisionist? By whom the title was declared in consolidation? At what stage in developing consolidation process the order came? Where is the copy of order deciding controversy? Against whom the suit's we re contested: as entry of 8 cases numbers at page 52 of written argument illustrates? Was entry also made in C.H. Form 23? These orders purported to have been passed on 21.5.66, 14.5.66 and 28.5.66. Why no entry in khatauni immediately after consolidation? These are tokens of the reasons which suggest that unauthorised incorporation of names in C.H. Form 45 was done to serve the claim to land. The man who made the entry could lay his hand only on C.H. Form 45. He anti-dated the order to have been passed in 1966. We have no basis to suppose that order was actually passed or entry is of the year 1966. To reinforce this conclusion there is, one more circumstance. The alleged files were never consigned to Record-room. The man who made the entry could lay his hand only on C.H. Form 45. He anti-dated the order to have been passed in 1966. We have no basis to suppose that order was actually passed or entry is of the year 1966. To reinforce this conclusion there is, one more circumstance. The alleged files were never consigned to Record-room. Faced with this difficulty the revisionists have filed a questionnaire to show that files of year 1966 have been weeded out. Apt. But the pertinent question is: whether the files were consigned at all? This answer has riot been replied. The report of Record Keeper to Sub-Divisional Officer is positive that no such files were ever consigned. This has taken the wind out of sails of revisionist and exposes the falsity of their claim on 'the basis of forged incorporation in C.H. Form 45. 6. Much has been made of Sub-Divisional Officer failure to give opportunity of hearing. This violates no principle. When men get their name incorporated by deceitful means they do not turn up when process is issued to them. In avoiding the summons they hope to prolong continuance of their names in record. They sit like an eagle over a lonely crag surveying the proceeding. Immediately after the order is passed, they will descend on the scene to lodge their protest in revision. So happens here. I am of the opinion that when a dispute essentially rests on a colour of title and entries; right or wrong, are in contest, the person likely to be effected by proposed order should be called for hearing. But where claim to title begins on a mere forged entry in records, the same can be removed, after satisfactory enquiry without hearing. The reason is plain. The deceitful entry by a revenue official cannot apparently compel SDO's full dress trial for removal. As the entry came, so shall it go down. The postulate of hearing is not absolute. It is relative to empirical material, to what is alleged to be 'fact'. We obtain evidence for principle by appealing to facts; we select and interpret facts oh the basis of principles. This is a reciprocal process.'I find disturbing increase. In forging official record of consolidation. The principle has to be manipulated to serve actual conditions. I am supported by formulation in 1991 RD 48 (Hindi) which rests on AIR 1991 SC 909 . This is a reciprocal process.'I find disturbing increase. In forging official record of consolidation. The principle has to be manipulated to serve actual conditions. I am supported by formulation in 1991 RD 48 (Hindi) which rests on AIR 1991 SC 909 . This ends in despair to revisionists. 7. The subsequent entry in khatauni are carry over of forged entry in C.H. Form 45: reproduction and continuation. So that in no way suffer forwards revisionists. The conclusion of Sub-Divisional Officer about absence of revisionist's possession over the land is well founded. On a consideration of the foregoing, the Reference is misconceived and is rejected. 8. This order will govern companion Reference Nos. 114 and 115 and 116 of 1983-84/Lucknow.