JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Islam and Sri Ram Krishna Mishra, who have appeared for the contesting respondents. Both the writ petitions having been heard together are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In first writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition No. 52332 of 2002, a prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 3rd September, 2002 passed by the District Magistrate on the report submitted by the Officer In-charge, Revenue Record Room. In second writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by Consolidation Officer, order dated 24th March, 2003 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order dated 29th August, 2003 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 3. Brief facts, necessary for deciding both the writ petitions, are; an application under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 was filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 before the Assistant Consolidation Officer praying for giving effect to the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 14th July, 1969 passed in Case No. 17, under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The case of the petitioner was that the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14th July, 1969 directed for recording the name of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, Nisar Ahmad, in place of Noor Mohammad, deceaded on Chak No. 57, but only the name of Nisar Ahmad is continuing in the revenue records, hence the original records be summoned and the name of the petitioner be recorded. The Consolidation Officer summoned the original record and called for the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer after perusing the report of Assistant Consolidation Officer and the original records of the case came to the conclusion that there was no order in favour of the petitioner and her name was interpolated subsequently on the record, statements and the application, which is clear from the documents itself as the interpolations were made by different ink and by erasing some writings. The Consolidation Officer after recording the said findings rejected the application under Rule 109-A. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer after recording the said findings rejected the application under Rule 109-A. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation challenging the order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by Consolidation Officer. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Officer In-charge of Revenue Record Room submitted a report dated 3rd September, 2002 to the District Magistrate mentioning that in Khata No. 73 Amal Daramad dated 12th January, 1974 has been made in the name of the petitioner, which is nothing but a forgery in the record since in Khata No. 73 there was no Amal Daramad of the name of the petitioner, which is apparent from the extract of the revenue entries taken from the revenue records on 30.1.2002 and 28.4.2001. The Officer In-charge recommended that the Amal Daramad of the petitioner’s name has been brought on the record by forgery. The District Magistrate approved the said report on 3.9.2002, which recommended cancellation of the Amal Daramad of the petitioner’s name in Khata No. 73 and Khata No. 56 and also recommended for lodging a first information report under Section 420 of I.P.C. The first writ petition is a writ petition which has been filed against the said order dated 3.9.2002. In the writ petition filed against the order dated 3.9.2002, an interim order was passed by this Court on 5.12.2002. The appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 22nd August, 2001 was heard and rejected on 24th March, 2003. It is to be noted that before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner also prayed that the appeal and the application under Rule 109-A U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules be permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn but the said request was not acceded to. Against the order of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, a revision was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which too was rejected on 29th August, 2003. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders passed by consolidation authorities, contended that it was not open for the consolidation authorities to have gone into the alleged forgery in the proceedings dated 14th July, 1969 of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. He submits that there was no opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said proceedings and the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities were without any opportunity. 5. He submits that there was no opportunity to the petitioner to contest the said proceedings and the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities were without any opportunity. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order of the District Magistrate, dated 3.9.2002, contended that the said order was also passed on the report of the Officer In-charge, Revenue Records without any opportunity to the petitioner. He submits that the recommendations dated 3.9.2002 were both for cancelling the Amal Daramad and for lodging the first information report, which could not have been done without any opportunity or notice to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that petitioner was not entitled for any opportunity. He submits that it was the respondent No. 4 who succeeded to Noor Mohammad, father of respondent No. 4 and it was the respondent No. 4, whose name was recorded during consolidation proceedings in the revenue records. He submits that in consolidation proceedings no objection was filed by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that there was joint objection filed, has been specifically denied. It is submitted that there was no joint objection and respondent No. 4 alone was recorded. The counsel for the contesting respondent contended that the Consolidation Officer had every jurisdiction to record finding with regard to forgery in the order dated 14th July, 1969 on the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954. With regard to the order of the District Magistrate dated 3rd September, 2002, it has been contended that the said order was passed after perusing the record of the Officer In-charge, Revenue Record Room and the District Magistrate was fully competent to direct for lodging of the first information report with regard to forgery committed in the revenue records. 7. I have considered the submissions raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before proceeding to examine the various contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine as to whether the petitioner has been able to prove that the order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 14th July, 1969 in his favour directing her name to be recorded in the revenue records. 8. Before proceeding to examine the various contentions raised by the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine as to whether the petitioner has been able to prove that the order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 14th July, 1969 in his favour directing her name to be recorded in the revenue records. The recording of the name in the revenue records can only be a consequential action to the main order dated 14th July, 1969. Taking the Writ Petition No. 52943 of 2003 first, which arises out of the proceedings under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 initiated by the petitioner, it is clear that the Consolidation Officer on the application of the petitioner himself has called for the original records of Case No. 17, under Section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 decided on 14th July, 1969 and after perusing the original records recorded findings that the name of the petitioner has been added by interpolation in the said order. The Consolidation Officer recorded categorical finding that the interpolation were made in the original file after the same was deposited in the Record Room. He recorded a finding that the forgery was made in the order and statements by adding the name of Farmudi, the petitioner. For coming to the said conclusion the Consolidation Officer noted the ink by which certain writings were added and the numbering of the file. The application under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 was filed by the petitioner himself for giving effect to the order dated 14th July, 1969. In the application the petitioner has claimed that original records be summoned and given effect to. The action of the Consolidation Officer calling the original record and perusing the same cannot be said to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer. A court or an authority who is empowered to decide a question for giving relief to a party has all incidental power to look into the records and decide the question. The Consolidation Officer having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no right, did not commit any error in rejecting the application. A court or an authority who is empowered to decide a question for giving relief to a party has all incidental power to look into the records and decide the question. The Consolidation Officer having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has no right, did not commit any error in rejecting the application. Before the appellate Court the appeal was filed and the petitioner made a prayer for permitting him to withdraw the application under Rule 109-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 which was not acceded to by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation did not accede to the said prayer rightly. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation observed that by by perusal of paper fraud is apparent and he further observed that no explanation has been given for filing the application after 30 years by the petitioner. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not given opportunity cannot be accepted. The proceedings were initiated on the application of the petitioner himself filed under Rule 109-A on which original records were called and perused. No error can be said to have been committed by the consolidation authorities in looking to the original records and recording their own finding. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities. In view of the findings of the consolidation authorities that petitioner’s name was never directed to be recorded in place of Noor Mohammad and it was respondent No. 4 whose name alone was directed to be recorded, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any relief against the order of the consolidation authorities. 9. Coming to the writ petition, challenging the order of the District Magistrate dated 3rd September, 2002, suffice it to say that it is clear from the above discussions that petitioner has failed to prove that she had any right over the land in dispute. The finding recorded by the consolidation authorities is that her name was never directed to be recorded. The report submitted by the Officer In-charge, Revenue Records Room is thus absolutely correct that in Khata No. 73 and Khata No. 56 the Amal Daramad of an order dated 12.1.1974 was subsequently made and the same is nothing but a forgery. The finding recorded by the consolidation authorities is that her name was never directed to be recorded. The report submitted by the Officer In-charge, Revenue Records Room is thus absolutely correct that in Khata No. 73 and Khata No. 56 the Amal Daramad of an order dated 12.1.1974 was subsequently made and the same is nothing but a forgery. The petitioner having failed to prove her right she cannot maintain her name in the revenue records and the directions for expunging the said fictitious entry cannot be faulted. So far as lodging of the first information report is concerned, it is the prerogative and jurisdiction of the authorities to take a decision to launch a prosecution on being satisfied. The right of lodging the first information report cannot be denied when authorities are prima facie satisfied. Thus the order of the District Magistrate cannot be faulted with. The petitioner has not made out any case for grant of any relief in both the writ petitions. 10. The counsel for the petitioner lastly contended that the order of District Magistrate passed on 3rd September, 2002 for lodging the first information report was without jurisdiction since the appeal was pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Admittedly the Consolidation Officer has already passed an order in the year 2001 holding that the name of the petitioner was added as a result of interpolation in the order of the year 1969. Further more the first information report is being lodged with regard to alleged interpolation in the original records of the Revenue Record Room and the Officer In-charge has every right to report for any criminal action irrespective of pendency of any appeal or any other litigation anywhere. Thus this submission of counsel for the petitioner has no substance. 11. None of the submissions raised by counsel for the petitioner has any substance. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is discharged. Petition Dismissed. ———