JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: On 28.11.1991 four reference Nos. 113 to 116 of 1983-84/Lucknow under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act were rejected by me. On 2.12.1991 a seven pages review petition is filed by revisionist Chandra Dutt Mishra. Who has jurisdiction to hear it? Section 202 (3) Land Revenue Act is emphatic: "A single Member vested with all or any of the powers of the Board shall not have power to alter or reverse a decree or order passed by Board or by any other member other than himself." The Member deciding the revision alone can admit and hear a review petition. Order 47 Rule 5, C.P.C. is clear even much more, "where the Judge who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues and is not precluded by absence of six months, no other Judge of the Court shall hear the same." 2. This clear position notwithstanding Chandra Dutt Mishra never presented review for admission and hearing before me. Headless to stress, in the absence of order of admission of review by Member having jurisdiction, review is not competent for hearing by a Bench. 3. On 12.12.1991 applicants present a review before Hon'ble Chairman and obtain a stay of operation of order of Board of Revenue dated 20.11.1991 and also Sub-Divisional Officer's 22.9.1982. A review, unlike an appeal or revision, is not a continuing procedure taking petitioner to a court higher in commission for redressal. On filing a review, no provisions is for grant of a stay of operation: AIR 1988 Alld. 362 H.C.; AIR 1968 Alld. 862 H.C., D.B. 4. In the name of violation of all that is scared in fact and at law counsel moves Hon'ble Chairman to constitute a Bench to hear review excluding the Member alone having jurisdiction. In the absence of any reference, for adequate reasons, by Member revisionists have no locus standi. There has never been any differing opinion on the legal scope of Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act. No Bench is to sit to decide a factual issue: Whether entry in C.H. Form 45 is a fabrication or not. The review is not admitted by Member rejecting reference. 5. On 25.7.1992 D.G.C. (R.) writes on the margin of the review application that order of Board is contradictory and reference to Bench is Apt. No Bench is to sit to decide a factual issue: Whether entry in C.H. Form 45 is a fabrication or not. The review is not admitted by Member rejecting reference. 5. On 25.7.1992 D.G.C. (R.) writes on the margin of the review application that order of Board is contradictory and reference to Bench is Apt. The order of the Board of Revenue was in favour of State. For whom did D.G.C. (Revenue) speak? What contradiction did he find in the order? It is disconcerting to notice revisionists riding rough-shod over Section 220 (3) Land Revenue Act and Order 47, Rule 5 C.P.C. The Bench had sitting and I am to find out grounds of review as set forth in the light of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. 6. Are there mistakes or errors apparent on the face of record in order dated 29.11.1991? The application is not competent where a different conclusion could have been drawn. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise by which an erroneous decision is re-heard: 1964 SC 1973. The grounds in seven page review are so much the more stated in broad terms and sweeping legal phrases with less attempt to come to grips with unique and particular factual position showing errors illustrated in the order of Board. 7. One ground No. 27 is that substitution of Raj Kumar, a revisionist, is not decided, and he was dead. So revision was not ripe for disposal. I see this is patently incorrect. Substitution is allowed on 15.11.1991. Even absence of order by court is not material. 8. Also grievance in paragraph 23 is beside the point that court has to bring to the notice of the parties the rulings relied upon. No such provision or practise is there. 9. Paragraph 6 claims that applicants affidavit is unrebutted in support of claim of bhumidhari rights. Rights are not acknowledged on the basis of claims in affidavits which are inadmissible in evidence: 1981 (2) R.D. 133. More, the determination of bhumidhari tenure is not involved. What is signly involved is: whether or not there is a clerical error by reason of interpolation in C.H. Form 43. Rights are not acknowledged on the basis of claims in affidavits which are inadmissible in evidence: 1981 (2) R.D. 133. More, the determination of bhumidhari tenure is not involved. What is signly involved is: whether or not there is a clerical error by reason of interpolation in C.H. Form 43. The grievances are reduced to the following: (1) consideration resting on violation of or adherence to principle of natural, justice, (ii) Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction as question of title was involved (iii) Consideration as to absence or distruction of file of cases under Section 9-A C.H. Act. 10. I will take up one by one. On 30.7.1982 Tahsildar, Lucknow reports 42 surreptitious interpolations in C.H. Form 45 in respect of land vesting in Gaon Sabha: Talab, Usar etc. Tahsildar's report cuts like a stingery in the heart of beneficiaries of interpolation. They are not likely to appear in court. But they are never away from the scene. It has been observed by Board on 28.11.1991: "they sit like an eagle over a lonely crag surveying the landscape." No sooner the order is passed by Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.9.1982, revisionists are there, high and dry, without summons, to apply for a copy of order on 1.11.1982 i.e., within 42 days. Were they not watching? On 18.10.82 Sajiwan Lal learns of order: his claim is in stay application before Commissioner. Revision is lodged in Commissioner's on 10.11.82. This is to watch from sidelines but not to participate. 11. Ordinarily correction cases are short and simple and end up in a few pages with Advocates brief submission. But here the revisionists have had much more. In Commissioner's 19 grounds in four pages and then 40 pages of written arguments in Board are submitted. It is easy to imagine how much more oral argument was made to hammer home the claim and contention. Is this denial of hearing here, there and everywhere? Review petition variously in several paragraphs makes a grievance of passing of order, without hearing, by Sub-Divisional Officer. Whether right of hearing is absolute? The material facts in AIR 1991 SC 909 are: Fake judgment was said to have been produced before different Medical Colleges purporting to have been delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Review petition variously in several paragraphs makes a grievance of passing of order, without hearing, by Sub-Divisional Officer. Whether right of hearing is absolute? The material facts in AIR 1991 SC 909 are: Fake judgment was said to have been produced before different Medical Colleges purporting to have been delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anshuman Singh, J., on 25.5.1990 in Writ Petition No. 5267 of 1990 directing the opposite parties not to hold competitive examinations scheduled on 27.5.1990 and to admit petitioners in post graduate Medical Course in the present session on the basis of marks obtained in M.B.B.S. Course. It has been held by S.C.: "The circumstances in which such benefit has been taken by the candidates concerned do not justify attraction of the application of rules of natural justice of being provided an opportunity to be heard." Hon'ble Member N.M. Majmudar has followed this proposition in 1991 R.D. 48 (Hindi). So I have governed myself by. In this case, beneficiaries of interpolation were not heard by S.D.O. but at length by Commissioner arid Board of Revenue. The opinion of Hon'ble Ranganath Mishra and Kuldip Singh, JJ. in AIR 1991 SC 909 was mentioned in my order dated 28.11.1991 to stress that opportunity of hearing is not necessary when things are obtained by fraud. Paragraph 15 of review petition, rashly and extravagently, states that this view, based on opinion of Supreme Court is "perverse". It is not so. On this score, no patent error lurks in the order. 12. The next grievance, most significantly articulated, is that entries were old and authentic raising complicated questions of title and so beyond clerical scope of Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act. This needs deeper scrutiny. The entry of names is only in C.H. Form 45 pointing to determination of title under Section 9-A C.H. Act. Let us see the basis of this entry. Rule 27 requires that consolidation Lekhpal shall note the orders under Section 9-A with regard to (i) rights in and liabilities in regard to the land in the basic khatoni (ii) khasra chakbandi in C.H. Form 2-A and (iii) the relevant column of the revised Annual Register in C.H. Form 11. He shall enter case numbers, the dates of order and its operative portion in the records aforesaid. There is nothing in Forms 2-A. 11 etc. in proof of alleged order under Section 9-A C.H. Act. He shall enter case numbers, the dates of order and its operative portion in the records aforesaid. There is nothing in Forms 2-A. 11 etc. in proof of alleged order under Section 9-A C.H. Act. A revised Annual Register in C.H. Form 11 shall be prepared by consolidation Lekhpal incorporting all the orders relating to rights in, and liabilities in respect of land passed under Section 9-A. Where is copy of C.H. Form 11? Also an alphabetical list in Hindi in C.H. Form 10-A showing all the holdings of a tenure-holder of one place shall be prepared. Are names of revisionists in Form 10-A? Rule 45 commands Asstt. Consolidation Officer to prepare provisional consolidation scheme in C.H. Form 23 showing the plots allotted to tenure-holders. The names of C.D. Mishra's do not figure in C.H. Form 23. They have failed to furnish evidence even at the stage of review. It is finally that Lekhpal shall, with the help of Khasra Mutabiqat and other relevant records mentioned in sub-Section (1)of Section 27, prepare the khatoni in C.H. Form 45 in duplicate. It is in C.H. Form 45 that entries are forged in vacant spaces. 13. The same conclusion is reached when we go by legal precedents. 1968 R.D. 185 H.C. elucidates: "Entries in C.H. Form 23 are made from previous entries which have been confirmed and become final and are published under Section 23 read with Rule 50. C.H. Form 25 is, in fact, the allotment order prepared in accordance with what had taken place earlier." 1966 R.D. 170 is positive: once proceedings upto the stage of Section 22 of C.H. Act are completed and the statement of proposals under Section 23 have been confirmed, the statement of proposals becomes final." I see no incorporation of entries in successive Forms 2-A, 11, 10-A, 23, 25 to show that proceeding has taken place at all from the stage of Section 9-A C.H. Act to Section 23 C.H. Act. It's zero in a dark vaccum. A moment in history is, and has always been: a concentrated expression of all that has gone before more intensely in the immediate past. How entry in C.H. Form 45 from no proceeding source came about? In the original register all vacant spaces under a heading such as 'Navin Parti' etc., are appropriately enough, scored out by along cross line in red ink to exclude chances of interpolation. How entry in C.H. Form 45 from no proceeding source came about? In the original register all vacant spaces under a heading such as 'Navin Parti' etc., are appropriately enough, scored out by along cross line in red ink to exclude chances of interpolation. Sadly, this is not done in last 21 pages, as I count. Consolidation Lekhpal did not adhre to his own hinge: somebody did forge entries in the spaces, without red crossing line, as had been provisioned. Under the heading 'Usar' etc. the imaginary name and number of case contested before Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A C.H. Act is noted. Still he could not supply all relevant specifics. C.O. of which circle? Contest against whom? As names of revisionists are not noted in basic year khatoni. Banjar vests in Gaon Sabha. It is significantly not a 'holding' and consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to decide: 1986 R.D. 306. Khata No. 775 is Talab. Under Section 132 Z.A. and L.R. Act no rights accrue in such land. 14. All effort comes to little. So no virtue is in the contention that files thereof were destroyed. It is clear that sophistication of revisionists has not yet attained that quality where they are to regard right to land based on forged entry, as dishonourable. 15. A questionaire dated 1.3.19 answers that all files in record room of the year till 1966 have been destroyed. Whether particular files in question were in record room? The answer will not clinth this interrogation. It was not consigned, did not lay in racks and never destroyed. The next question is direct: Whether files, are consigned to record room and on which date? This relevant question is, with bod motive, scored out with a heavy lid. Still one more question was put: at which serial number the files are entered in the register? This too is scored out, why? The intention is to deliberately repress the disclosure of truth. 16. On 6.8.1982, S.D.O. Sri R.K. Ojha enquires from Settlement Officer Consolidation to state real position as respects suspected entries of C.H. Form 45 of ; 1966. He answers on 21.8.1982: The required files were not consigned to record room. I have carefully checked Register and list of Goshwara which does not show consignment of these files, But enquiries also from Consolidate Officer. Arranger, R.R. Room Lucknow. He answers on 21.8.1982: The required files were not consigned to record room. I have carefully checked Register and list of Goshwara which does not show consignment of these files, But enquiries also from Consolidate Officer. Arranger, R.R. Room Lucknow. On 1.9.1982 C.O. Lucknow is specific: "In respect of village Mati, Pargana Bijnore, Tahsil Lucknow, notification under Section 52 C.H. Act has been issued, records have been made over to Tahsil Office. Nevertheless, A.C.O. was contacted who reports that no clue supports filing of Misilband Register in record room." So that is that. What has taken the wind out of sali's is paragraph 17 of grounds of revision in Commissioner's: "That no filing of Misilband Register is an official work and it could not be ascertained who could not file them in record room." Confession is that Misilband Register is not consigned: argument is that it has been destroyed. All references to files is superious. No documentary evidence is to sustain possession, as claimed in ground 7, since 1347-F. All claim of possession before consolidation is washed off. No proof is of possession during and after consolidation. 17. The grounds in review in paragraphs 14 and 21 are paradoxical in content. It is contended that Sub-Divisional Officer should not have expunged the entries in question as title is involved: a thing beyond the scope of Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act. Apt. When it has been demonstrated that entries in C.H. Form 45 false and fictitious, the case is pressed in paragraph 21, not set forth in Commissioner's, that tenurial rights are flowing unabated by reason of entry in 1356 and 1359 Fasli and be acknowledged under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act. 1970 R.D. 1967 by Hon'ble Member Y.N. Verma is cited to support that a tenant can leave out of cultivation some of his holding and it will not vest in Gaon Sabha. Should I decide afresh a claim to land under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act? The criteria to adopt is: Do evaluate and conclude title under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act in favour of C.D. Mishra's but, S.D.O. or Board of Revenue have no jurisdiction to decide the entry of C.H. Form 45 is ab initio forged. With respect I am emphatically to say: Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act enables expunction of ab initio fake entries but not to decide question of fresh contested title. With respect I am emphatically to say: Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act enables expunction of ab initio fake entries but not to decide question of fresh contested title. A principle is a principle and shall apply through and through. C.D. Mishra's are thinking a new thing in Commissioner's still new in Board and much more in review. You have to think twice every time you think. In case what you train hit on the dubious side. (Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoner's, London, 1951 P. 3). It is well in remember that if a person is not declared tenure-holder in consolidation he has no rights: 1982 RJ 200, 1983 RD 11. Their train has steamed off and even if they were to rip up the track, they will not reach the destination. In the new situation, heralded by advent of consolidation, it is idle to intone old litanies as in khasra 1356 or 1359 Fasli. Ali rights, title and interest based on possession, legal or illegal, are washed off, unless sustained during consolidation: 1972 R.D. 294. All claims based on any entry of trespass or 1356 or 1359 Fasli are nullified in to as a result of consolidation not only because of decision of dispute relating to title but because of fresh allotments made, interchange of land, an specific transfer of possession in favour of new allottees. So it is needless to enquire whether entries of 1356 and 1359 F are genuine or forged. More, it is beyond scope of paper correction proceeding. Still I do if only out of respect to submission. 18. Khatoni extracts 1356 Fasli in the names of Chandra Dutt, Brij Mohan, Suresh, Raj Kumar, Kishan Lal, ail revisionists, are filed to show their rights in this or that capacity. In the original register all entries are also forged. In the certified copy was an important note as below: "It was noted as 'Talab' overwriting with a different ink seems to have been done." 19. Such a note in all five copies is completely erased out. I have read out the above only from copy of Suresh. Also the next line is not readable, in view of effective erasures in all five khasras. It is extremely disconcerting to notice that for defence of forgery in C.H. Form 45 more documents: khasra 1356 Fasli are forged. This is forgery upon forgery in a continuous stream. I have read out the above only from copy of Suresh. Also the next line is not readable, in view of effective erasures in all five khasras. It is extremely disconcerting to notice that for defence of forgery in C.H. Form 45 more documents: khasra 1356 Fasli are forged. This is forgery upon forgery in a continuous stream. We direct S.D.O. to enquire who had access to crucial register of 1356 Fasli to forge, who are responsible and to file complaint against them under Section 340/193 I.P.C. as in relation to ongoing proceeding, forge documents are used: 1987 R.D. 330. 20. Two legal precedents are to hand. 1987 R.D. 274 B.R. observed: Where apparent mistake has crept in C.H. Form 23, such mistake can be rectified by taking recourse to provision of Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act since the duty of maintenance of correct records lies on Collector after consolidation has closed." I respectfully agree to abide by this observation. 21. A case of similar forgery resting on same lines is decided by the then Hon'ble Chairman P.B. Vyas Bhiman, gone in report: 1987 R.D. 3. In this also Tahsildar, Lucknow has reported that entry of sirdari in khatoni is incorrect because entry in C.H. Form 45 has been forged. The land was Usar-Navin Parti. It was so recorded in C.H. Form 41. Hon'ble Chairman observes: 22. In the case the report of Tahsildar and the finding of trial court show that prima facie there was an abrupt change in the entries from C.H. Form 41 to C.H. Form 45, The burden shifts to revisionist to show that there was a valid order by means of which the name came to be recorded as sirdar. This she has not been able to show. The burden has not been discharged. The dictum that long standing entries should not be disturbed in correction cannot obviously apply to entries which are shown to be ab initio false." Forgery in C.H. Form 45 as there, is also here; the forger in both probably is same lekhpal. The offence' forms part of a continuous series. The action in both begins on report of Tahsildar Lucknow. What consolidation Lekhpal has conceived in secrecy and executed in privacy in minutes has taken years and attention of Hon'ble Chairman and Members to rectify. 23. A further consideration is yet. The offence' forms part of a continuous series. The action in both begins on report of Tahsildar Lucknow. What consolidation Lekhpal has conceived in secrecy and executed in privacy in minutes has taken years and attention of Hon'ble Chairman and Members to rectify. 23. A further consideration is yet. Order under Section 9-A C.H. Act is purported to be passed in 1965/1966. When denotification under Section 52 C.H. Act was issued? No date is in evidence but appearances are for 1983 or thereabouts. Khatoni 1394 to 1399 Fasli records tenure beginning from before 1873 Fasli; instead of 1376 Fasli. The forger could not make it all of a piece. 24. One important consideration stems from C.H. Form 41. It records land 'Usar' which is not a 'holding'. Consolidation courts have no jurisdiction to decide rights in Usar, banjar lands. In grounds of review it is heavily emphasised that D.G.C. (R.) has not rebutted this ground or that contention. It makes little difference. 25. The entry in C.H. against each is as below: 1. Chandra Dutt 10-8-0 2. C.D. Mishra 10-3-0 3. Brij Mohan 12-5-0 4. Mahender Kumar 12-10-0 5. Rajendra Prasad 10-7-0 6. Krishna Lal 10-6-0 7. Suresh 9-18-0 8. Ram Naresh 10-8-0 85-15-0 The land is situate in village Mati, a little distance from Lucknow City. 26. In sum, revisionists not recorded in basic year khatoni, no rights determined under Section 9-A C.H. Act, failure of attempt to show concerned files, files or no files name not recorded in successive C.H. Forms, C.H.C. 41 showing land on holding prove to demonstration that abrupt, entry in the vacant space, already provisioned in C.H. form 45, is complete fabrication. 27. A copy of this order be sent to Collector, Lucknow, to order enquiry as respects forgery in C.H. Form 45 and to find out the person responsible. The matter is serious and suitable action be taken against the offender. 28. No error, much less patent, is seen. Review is rejected.