JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: Ramji and others institute a declaratory law suit under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act. 1939 on 22.1.54. the pleading has set forth the contention that Lekhpal is entering the land as Banjar; is not recording then as hereditary tenants. It is claimed that they are hereditary tenants in possession. The relief or declaration is prayed for. A compromise in their favour is filed by Pradhan Gaon Sabha. This is verified on 10.2.54. Assistant Collector First Class enters an order of decree. 2. Up Pradhan, Gaon Sabha files a restoration application on 15.4.76. He complains that decree is based on fraud and forgery. Zamindari Abolition had taken place still then the suit is filed under Section 59/61 U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 in the year 1954. Instead of Zamindar Pradhan Gaon Sabha is impleaded who is father of some and grand father of other plaintiffs. The defendant has, expectedly enough, filed a collusive compromise. The land in nature is Pokhri, Bhita and Banjar. No rights can accrue in such land. In order to screen out fraud no amaldaramad was secured till late in the years. When Gaon Sabha came to know of such decree: infected and illegal, on 12.4.76 the successors Pradhan, a relation of the previous, declined to make a motion of restoration. So as Up Pradhan, Goon Sabha he has to highlight to seek a reversal of decree. An affidavit in support is enclosed. On 20.5.76 Ramji's file an Objection in Opposition. They complain that restoration is not barked by a resolution of Land Management Committee as required by Paragraph 128 Gaon Samaj Manual. The land is sirdari tenure and their possession is from before Abolition of Zamindari. It is allegro that consolidation has intervened in the meanwhile. A counter reply is lodged by Up Pradhan on 27.5.76. Parties are given change to lead evidence and make their representation. On 5.6.76 Assistant Collector First Class enters an order restoring the suit: the decree dated 10.7.54 is set aside. 3. Ramji's are disconserted. They carry a revision in Commissioner's. Addl. Commissioner on 13.7.77 submits a reference to set aside the order of court below and to remand the application for decision afresh. The reference is docketed here for a definitive decision. 4. Heard the counsel pro and con the revision. 5. 3. Ramji's are disconserted. They carry a revision in Commissioner's. Addl. Commissioner on 13.7.77 submits a reference to set aside the order of court below and to remand the application for decision afresh. The reference is docketed here for a definitive decision. 4. Heard the counsel pro and con the revision. 5. On an evaluation of material on record I am convinced that Ramji's conduct is highly reproachable and they have procured a decree based on massive fraud. Abolition of Zaminadari has taken place on 1.7.52 but still suit is erroneously filed under Section 59/61 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 on 22.1.54 is the law suit is maintainable? Also no torts art described how title came by of a hereditary tenancy. The land is Banjar which vests in Gaon Sabha: 1971 RD 52. No rights can accrue in Gaon Sabha land by virtue of adverse possession and no quest ion of bona fide right can be claimed; 1984 AWC 561 , 1979 RD 209.Instead of Zamindar as a defendant, Pradhan is impleaded who is no other man but their own father. Summon not put up before Land Management Committee in Session: 1982 AWC 6 (Rev). When both the parties are in secretive collusion a decree is sure to follow on a compromise. So it happens here. This decree: infected and deceitful, is riot made a basis for a quick amaldaramad in revenue records. Perhaps were this done immediately, it would have taken the wind out of their sails. In this prospective restoration conies on 15.4.76. For restoration no need is to file a resolution in terms of paragraph 128 Gaon Samaj Manual: 1979 AWC 9 (Rev). Also Pradhan is not competent to enter into a compromise without prior permission of Tahsildar as required by Rule 110 (2) ZA Rules. Pradhan's signature is not identified by Penal lawyer: Upon all I see, there is fraud upon fraud in securing the decree in suit. 6. The counsel for appellant argues that consolidation has intervened in the meanwhile and tenurial rights have been finally declared. So in the face of elucidation in 1982 AWC 44 (Revenue) restoration is barred by Section 49 CH Act counsel submits that on issue of notification under Section 4 (2) CH Act a fresh cause of action arose and Gaon Sabha was under obligation to protest an objection under Section 9 (2) of C.H. Act. So in the face of elucidation in 1982 AWC 44 (Revenue) restoration is barred by Section 49 CH Act counsel submits that on issue of notification under Section 4 (2) CH Act a fresh cause of action arose and Gaon Sabha was under obligation to protest an objection under Section 9 (2) of C.H. Act. He calls attention to 1979 RD 57 (Summary) and 1979 ALR 221 to buttress his contention. The counsel contends that notification under Section 52 C.H. Act has been issued on 16.3.81. So rights in the land have finally been declared and recorded accordingly in C.H. Forms 23, 41 and 45. With respect, I do no agree. It bears consideration whether tenurial rights of Ramji's have actually been declared in consolidation. In the declaratory law suit there are 10 plots area 20.71 decimals. I have set these numbers against those in C.H. form 41 and find that most of them do not tally. C.H. form 23 is not filed. Ergo, it is not possible to say that plots in C.H. Form 41 and 43 arc the same which are the subject matter of litigation in suit under U.P. tenancy Act 1939. Where fraud is writ large - it is apt to restore the case arid place the plaintiffs in position they were in the year 1954. In the suit he can very well set up his plea that rights in the land have ultimately been declared in consolidation. The court may formally pass a decree. If plaintiffs arc already Bhumidhar tenants there is no need for re-assurance by a second decree. Why plaintiffs should fight shy of proving their claim and contention. 1982 AWC 44 bars restoration in view of Section 49 CH Act. But it is so necessary that tenurial rights in consolidation should have been decided as respects the same land which restoration seeks to throw open. So is not here. The process of court is so grossly abused here, it is the duty of court to undo the effect of that abuse under Section 191 C.P.C. This view finds support from AIR 1971 Patna 382. So is mediated in AIR 1919 Calcutta 622: consent decree fraudulently obtained can be set aside on a review even in the courts inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. A.I.R. 1957 Allahabad 825 is compelling. So is mediated in AIR 1919 Calcutta 622: consent decree fraudulently obtained can be set aside on a review even in the courts inherent powers under Section 151 C.P.C. A.I.R. 1957 Allahabad 825 is compelling. The elucidation is: A court has inherent power to recall an order made earlier in the suit passed in the absence of material which is subsequently placed before the court. So I precisely do here. The entail of the disturbing facts in restoration are crucial. The effort of Sub-Divisional Officer is surely inspired by the obligation belonging to justice an obligation that is of awareness, witness and concern. Additional Commissioner takes no forthright position as to restoration: should be finally granted or not. A thing most detestable to me, me think to Legislature too, is to decline to take a firm decision when significant fails echo so resoundingly. The contents of restoration: the Up Pradhan's exposure almost compels Additional Commissioner into the language of the guards in Hamlet: Sit Down awhile And let us once again assail your ears which are so fortified against our story. 7. On a consideration of the foregoing, the reference is misconceived and is rejected. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 5.6.76 is supportable in law and shall stand. In consequence the infected decree 10.2.54 goes down. The law suit of Ramji's under Section 59/61 U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 comes under consideration. The same be decided on merits according to law.