Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 826 (ALL)

Mushtaq Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2007-03-30

SHIV CHARAN SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT : Shiv Charan Sharma, J. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the opposite party No. 2 on dated 9.4.1992. Prayer has also been made for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 not to initiate proceedings u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. Facts of the case in brief are as follows: 2. The village Pradhan of Lolepur moved an application before the Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur on dated 2.4.1992 alleging that the disputed land belongs to Gram Sabha and this land has wrongly been entered in the name of the Petitioner and the same may be expunged. On this application opposite party No. 2 conducted an inquiry in the matter. And as a result of inquiry opposite party No. 2 arrived at the conclusion that fictitious entry has been made in the name of Petitioner from 1384F-1393F on the basis of forged and fraudulent order allegedly passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur. The opposite party No. 2 also ordered on 9.4.1992 that action should be taken u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act and Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar on the basis of this order will initiate proceedings under the said provision and expunge the name of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was recorded in the revenue papers according to Rule 23 of the Land Revenue Manual by Lekhpal under Rule 109 of U. P. C. H. Rules. It has also been provided in the Act that after de-notification of the village u/s 52 of the C. H. Act, if the orders passed during consolidation operation not complied with then the same may be executed under Rule 109 of the C.H. Rules. Hence, under these rules Petitioner moved an application to Tehsildar for incorporating his name in the revenue records according to the orders of the consolidation authorities. And thereafter by the order of the Tahsildar, the name of the Petitioner was entered in revenue records under Rule 109 of the C. H. Rules and after the order of the Tahsildar, the Lekhpal made entry in the record. And thereafter by the order of the Tahsildar, the name of the Petitioner was entered in revenue records under Rule 109 of the C. H. Rules and after the order of the Tahsildar, the Lekhpal made entry in the record. There is no provision in the Land Revenue Act to initiate any proceedings u/s 33/93 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to expunge the name of a person from the khatauni. The order of the Revenue Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 33/39 for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the khatauni is illegal and without jurisdiction and this Act is also prejudicial and mala fide and hence in these circumstances, it is just and proper that the jurisdiction of this Court be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Mohd. Shabbir, Mohd. Salim and other opposite parties filed counter-affidavit and the allegations made in the petition have been specifically disputed. It has further been alleged that the name of Petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad had already been entered in the revenue records on the basis of fictitious and forged entries without any substance. Mohd. Aleem and Ors. moved an application on 31.3.1992 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Sultanpur for conducting an inquiry about the forged and fictitious entries in the revenue record. It was alleged by the opposite parties that the disputed land belonged to the Gaon Sabha recorded as Banjar, Tank and Drainage. And the Petitioner manipulated the entry in his name on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The entire land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as non-agricultural land. This plot No. 305 measuring 2 biswa and plot No. 485 measuring 12 dhur, well of the ancestors of Mohd. Shabbir was existing and subsequently, Mohd. Shabbir installed tube-well and also got electric connection since February, 1991. The Village Pradhan also moved an application for inquiry as huge property of the Gaon Sabha has been acquired by the Petitioner on the basis of fictitious entry. And it was found in inquiry that on the basis of forged signature of Tahsildar, the Petitioner occupied the entire land of the Gaon Sabha, inquiry report is part of the affidavit that on the basis of forged entries dated 25.11.1987 allegedly passed in Appeal No. 1445 u/s 11 (i) of the C. H. Act, the Petitioner's name was entered in the revenue record. From the question answer dated 30.3.1992 obtained from the office of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Sultanpur no Appeal No. 1445 was entered in the register. The question answer is also the part of the affidavit. There was also no case No. 352 u/s 9A (ii) of C. H. Act. But on the basis of forged and fabricated case No. 352 judgment dated 23.4.1985, the name of the Petitioner was entered in the revenue record. From the question answer issued by Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Sultanpur, it is evident that there was no case of 352 and judgment on dated 23.4.1985. There is also no paper of Case No. 177/113 under Rule 109 of the C. H. Act which is also evident from the question answer dated 30.3.1992. On the basis of the forged and fabricated entry Petitioner took the plot of Mohd. Aleem also. The villagers have got the right to protect the interest of the Gaon Sabha Lolepur. Mohd. Salim in his affidavit further alleged that the Petitioner on the basis of forged and fraudulent entry obtained ex parte stay order. A direction was also given by the Court to the Petitioner not to dispose of the land during the pendency of the writ petition. But on 12.10.2000 in violation of the condition, Petitioner sold plot Nos. 72, 73 and 84 to one Santosh Kumar Pandey. Santosh Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Dwivedi are property dealers and these persons purchased the land only for the purpose of sale fully knowing that the land belongs to Gaon Sabha. Khata No. 132 of plot No. 150 measuring 0.531 Hectare was acquired by the Pollution Control Board. On the basis of forged and fabricated entries during the pendency of the petition Petitioner got the compensation of Rs. 5,73,303.75 from the Pollution Control Board. Inspite of the order of the Land Revenue Officer dated 17.11.1998, the Petitioner had taken away the compensation. And the Petitioner is also interested to dispose of the land of remaining plots and it will be detrimental to the interest of the Gaon Sabha. 4. Rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by the Petitioner after the counter-affidavit and it has been alleged by the Petitioner that the name of the Petitioner was incorporated in the namantaran vahi in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The ex-intermediary "Diera Estate" had executed two lease deed in favour of the Petitioner. 4. Rejoinder-affidavit was also filed by the Petitioner after the counter-affidavit and it has been alleged by the Petitioner that the name of the Petitioner was incorporated in the namantaran vahi in pursuance of the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. The ex-intermediary "Diera Estate" had executed two lease deed in favour of the Petitioner. And on the basis of the lease deed objections were filed during the consolidation proceedings. The objections of the Petitioner was allowed vide order dated 7.8.1985 and 25.11.1987 and entries were corrected after deleting the name of the Gaon Sabha. And the opposite parties are illegally alleging that the entries are false and fictitious. That the Sub-Divisional Officer afforded no opportunity to the Petitioner to represent his case and behind the back of the Petitioner order was passed for expunging of the entry. It appears that the opposite parties got the original record misplaced and obtained the question answer which are not admissible that the opposite parties are not interested to safeguard the interest of the Gaon Sabha. A false complaint was made by the interested persons having enmity, without following para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual. It is settled law that long standing entries in the revenue record cannot be corrected in summary proceedings specially when the right of the Petitioner has already been adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, senior advocate assisted by Sri Mohiuddin Khan and Sri R.K. Singh, counsel for the Respondents and I have also perused the entire material present on the record, it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order passed during the consolidation proceedings was not carried out in the revenue records and hence an application was moved by the Petitioner for making entry of his name in the revenue records on the basis of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation in the appeal. And accordingly the entry was made in the revenue record that the application was moved by the opposite parties for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the revenue record due to village enmity. And accordingly the entry was made in the revenue record that the application was moved by the opposite parties for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the revenue record due to village enmity. It has also been alleged that the lease of the property was granted by the ex-intermediary of "Diera Estate" and on the basis of the lease deed objections were filed before the consolidation authorities for making entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record. And consolidation authorities passed orders for making entry in the name of Petitioner in the revenue records. It has wrongly been alleged that the entries in the revenue record of the name of Petitioner was made on the basis of forged and fictitious orders. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the order by the Revenue Officer was passed u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. And it is the settled position of law that long standing entries cannot be expunged by following summary procedure as provided u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. The perusal of the Section 33/39 is material in this context. It has been provided u/s 33 : (1) The Collector shall maintain the record-of-rights, and for that purpose shall annually, or at such longer intervals as the [State Government] may prescribe, cause to be prepared an amended [register mentioned in Section 32]. The [register] so prepared shall be called the annual register. [(2) The Collector shall cause to be recorded in the annual register-- (a) all successions and transfers in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 ; or (b) other changes that may take place in respect of any land ; and shall also correct all errors and omissions in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 : Provided that the power to record a change under Clause (b) shall not be construed to include the power to decide a dispute involving any question of title.].... It has also provided u/s 39 : (1) An application for correction of any error or omission in the annual register shall be made to the Tahsildar. It has also provided u/s 39 : (1) An application for correction of any error or omission in the annual register shall be made to the Tahsildar. (2) On receiving an application under Sub-section (1) or any error or omission in the annual register coming to his knowledge otherwise, the Tahsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and then refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose it of, after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40 : [Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed to empower the Collector to decide a dispute involving any question of title.] (3) The provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall prevail, notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 6. The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in view of the Sections 33 and 39 such matters cannot be decided which involves dispute relating to any question of title. And in the present case, question of title of the Petitioner was involved and hence in the summary proceeding the Revenue Officer was not competent to pass an order for expunging the entry made in favour of the Petitioner. And in this context, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cited Mahalakshmi Land and Finance Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Lucknow and Ors. 1997 (15) LCD 273. It has been held in this ruling U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Section 33/39--Scope--Summary jurisdiction confined to correction of errors in the record of rights--Past litigations' orders could not be ignored by the authorities." Further it will be "'Error' meaning of the word -- Held, cannot be stretched beyond 'clerical errors' or those due to oversight--Contemplates a case where there is no real dispute between the parties and the only question is whether any accidental or clerical error was made in the previously prepared register. 7. 7. Further the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also cited Shri Krishna v. Board of Revenue (HC), 1996 (Supp) RD 382, and in this ruling it has been held by a Bench of this Court U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901--Sections 33 and 39--Correction of record--Expunging name from revenue records--Neither notice nor opportunity of hearing afforded to interested party before passing the impugned order--Violation of principles of natural justice--Ends of justice would be fully secured if the impugned order is quashed--Petition allowed--Direction issued to pass appropriate order on recall application. 8. On the strength of these judgment the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that on the application of the village Pradhan the inquiry was conducted by the Revenue Officer and without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner of hearing outright order was passed for expunging the entry of the name of the Petitioner u/s 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. That u/s 33/39 the record can be corrected where there is a clerical mistake and in the present case there is no allegation of clerical error. The entry was made in the name of the Petitioner in pursuance of the order of the consolidation authorities, hence, the valuable right of the Petitioner was involved in expunging the name of the Petitioner and the Revenue Officer was most unjustified in conducting the inquiry u/s 33/39 and passing the order for expunging the entry. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also argued that as in pursuance of the order of the consolidation authorities the entry was not made in the revenue record, hence, the entry was made in the khatauni and subsequent Act of the Revenue Officer for expunging the name of the Petitioner was most unjustified. The village Pradhan and other persons made false complaint against the Petitioner on the basis of village enmity. That in view of the judgment in Ayodhya v. Collector/Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, 2004 (97) RD 407, this Court held U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953--Sections 48 and 52--U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954--Rule Article 226--Order correcting area of disputed plot--Consolidation authorities are bound to give effect to the same and correct the consolidation records--Delay in incorporation of the order could not be permitted--Unless recalled, it has binding force--Grant of permission for recall of order--Administrative order--Not open to challenge--If any recall application is made, the same shall be tested. 9. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that as in pursuance of the order of the consolidation authorities the entry was not carried out incorporating the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record, hence, an application was moved by the Petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad for carrying out the entry in the khatauni. And the Lekhpal incorporated the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record. And there was nothing abnormal and illegal act on the part of the Lekhpal concerned. I agree with the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if there is an order of the consolidation authorities for incorporating the entry of the name of a particular person and due to certain reason the entry was not incorporated then the aggrieved person may move application and the same may be incorporated. And in the present case also it will be a material to decide that whether there was an order of competent consolidation authority to make the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records. On the application of the Petitioner dated 14.10.1990 the Lekhpal concerned made the entry to the following effect : 10. The above entry shows that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation passed the order in the case No. 352 decided on 23.4.1985 under Rule 109. Case No. 112 for making entry of the name of Mushtaq Ahmad over these plots after expunging the Gaon Sabha. Much has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that consolidation authorities passed an order in favour of the Petitioner for making entry of the name of the Petitioner over these plots. It is also material in the circumstances of the case that the village Pradhan Lolepur moved an application on 31.3.1992 that Mushtaq Ahmad S/o Hubdar Khan, R/o village Lolepur fraudulently got his name mutated in the revenue records with the connivance of the Lekhpal over the land of Gaon Sabha recorded as banjar, Pond and drainage. That on 12.8.1991 he obtained copy of khatauni from the Lekhpal after paying the requisite fee and in this extract of khatauni there is no entry of the name of Petitioner and the land stand recorded as the land of drainage. Tank and banjar. That on 12.8.1991 he obtained copy of khatauni from the Lekhpal after paying the requisite fee and in this extract of khatauni there is no entry of the name of Petitioner and the land stand recorded as the land of drainage. Tank and banjar. The Lekhpal concerned on the basis of fictitious order of the Consolidation Officer on 9.3.1991 made the entry of the name of Mushtaq Ahmad in the khatauni of the year 1399F to 1404F. Whereas in the khatauni issued to him on dated 12.08.1991, there is no entry of the name of Petitioner. Mohd. Aleem further stated that in new No. 302/485, the name of his ancestors stand recorded and that he is in the possession of this property that action may be taken against the guilty persons. Annexure-CA1 is the copy of this application other applications were also moved. Annexure-CA3 is also the copy of the enquiry report conducted by the Nayab Tahsildar on this application. It has been alleged in the enquiry report that entry has been made in the revenue record on the basis of forged signature of the then Tahsildar. The Lekhpal of the village made the fictitious entry of the name of Petitioner. Whereas in the record this land was earlier recorded the forest, banjar, Tank and drainage. It stand recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. That the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation appears forged and fictitious. On the basis of this enquiry report dated 11.4.1992 order was passed for expunging the name of Petitioner. 11. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties vehemently argued that the entry made in the revenue record of the name of Petitioner was fictitious and there was no order of the consolidation authorities for making entry in the revenue record of the name of Petitioner over these plots. No such case was ever filed before the consolidation authorities or Settlement Officer of Consolidation, hence question does not arise of the existence of order for making entry of the name of Petitioner. The Petitioner with the connivance of the Lekhpal got the entry made in the revenue record of his name. The Petitioner is required to prove that he filed objections before the consolidation authorities and order was passed for making entry of the name of Petitioner in the revenue record. The Petitioner with the connivance of the Lekhpal got the entry made in the revenue record of his name. The Petitioner is required to prove that he filed objections before the consolidation authorities and order was passed for making entry of the name of Petitioner in the revenue record. Under these circumstances, it is material to establish for the Petitioner that there was some genuine and bona fide basis for the Lekhpal to incorporate the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record. And if the Petitioner failed to establish the existence of any such order then it will be deemed that the entry is forged and fictitious and under these circumstances it can be said that the revenue authorities were fully competent to pass the order for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the revenue records even u/s 33/39. It cannot be said that merely on the basis of this fact that the name of Petitioner was ordered to be expunged from the revenue record that the question of title was involved and hence the revenue authorities were not competent to pass an order for expunging the entry by following the procedure u/s 33/39 of the Act. The Petitioner has come to this Court to invoke the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, hence the Petitioner is also required to show that he has the right to present the petition with bona fide intention but if on the face of it, it appears that the Petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with mala fide intention then no relief can be granted to him. If a person comes to a Court he must come with clean hands whereas it has been alleged and argued on behalf of the opposite parties that the conduct of the Petitioner was mala fide and he has not come with clean hands to the Court in these circumstances, no relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The Petitioner's counsel failed to show the existence of the order of consolidation authorities for making the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records. However, in the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been alleged by the Petitioner that the opposite parties obtained question answer from the concerned office after getting the original record misplaced. 12. The Petitioner's counsel failed to show the existence of the order of consolidation authorities for making the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records. However, in the rejoinder-affidavit, it has been alleged by the Petitioner that the opposite parties obtained question answer from the concerned office after getting the original record misplaced. When this writ petition was filed then the Petitioner should have filed the copy of the order passed by the consolidation authorities in favour of the Petitioner alongwith the objections filed by him. But no copy of the order or the objections were filed at the time of filing of the writ petition and later on also when the opposite parties specifically alleged that the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Appeal No. 1445 passed no order for making entry in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleged in the rejoinder-affidavit on 9.11.2000, that the opposite parties got the original record misplaced and obtained the question answer. By no stretch of reasoning it can be said that the opposite parties got the original record misplaced from the office and then obtained the question answer. In order to absolve himself from the liability of filing the certified copy of the order, this false assertion has been made in the affidavit. Merely on the basis of assertions of the affidavit it will not be proper to state that the opposite parties got the original record misplaced and then obtained question answer from the office. This is a lame excuse on the part of the Petitioner when the opposite parties appeared and stated that the entries in favour of the Petitioner is fictitious and no order was passed by the consolidation authorities then this fact has been alleged of misplacing of the record. If it was the fact then it must have been alleged in the petition initially. But nothing has been alleged in the petition that the consolidation authorities passed the order in the case in favour of the Petitioner and he is filing the certified copy of the order or the petition or objections. If it was the fact then it must have been alleged in the petition initially. But nothing has been alleged in the petition that the consolidation authorities passed the order in the case in favour of the Petitioner and he is filing the certified copy of the order or the petition or objections. The opposite parties have filed question answer obtained from the office of the concerned authority about the existence of such a case which has been mentioned in the extract of the khatauni Annexure-3, the only inference in these circumstances can be drawn that no case was filed before the consolidation authorities and no order was passed by the consolidation authorities for making the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record and the entry in the khatauni has been made by the Lekhpal without any basis. It has also not been shown by the Petitioner that application was moved for making entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record in pursuance of the order of the consolidation authorities, then he ought to have filed a certified copy of the orders. The basis for incorporating the entry of the name of the Petitioner was the order passed by the consolidation authorities. And neither the Petitioner has filled any copy of the consolidation authorities nor in view of the question answer obtained by the opposite parties there is any record of the case mentioned in the entry. And it can very well be inferred that the entry made in favour of the Petitioner is fictitious. 13. In view of the provisions of the Revenue Act, the right title shall accrue to a person as bhumidhari and sirdar on the basis of certain documents. It may be sale deed, will, continuous entry of the name of the Petitioner or on the basis of succession. The Petitioner has not alleged in the petition that he got the property in dispute on the basis of succession, Will, on execution of sale deed existence of long standing entry. It may be sale deed, will, continuous entry of the name of the Petitioner or on the basis of succession. The Petitioner has not alleged in the petition that he got the property in dispute on the basis of succession, Will, on execution of sale deed existence of long standing entry. In the affidavit dated 9.11.2000 filed by Niyaz Ahmad it has been alleged in para No. 5 that "the deponent submits that the ex-intermediary, i.e., Diera Estate had executed two lease deed in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of which objections were filed during the consolidation proceedings, which were allowed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, respectively vide order dated 7.8.1985 and 15.11.1987 and the entry were corrected after expunging the name of Gaon Sabha." It has not been alleged that after execution of the lease deed in favour of the Petitioner by the ex-intermediary the entry was made of the name of Petitioner in the revenue records prior to consolidation operation. There must be some substance to substantiate these averments that some ex-intermediary of Diera Estate executed lease deed. After abolition of Zamidari the name of the persons who were in possession appeared in the revenue record as bhumidhar or as sirdar. But there is no entry of the name of Petitioner in any revenue record after Zamindari abolition and prior to the consolidation operation. Moreover, the copy of the objection filed before the consolidation authorities have also not been filed. Hence, mere assertion of para 5 is not sufficient to allege that lease deed were executed by the Zamindar in favour of the Petitioner. And on the basis of all circumstances only inference can be drawn that for the first time the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record appeared on the basis of a fictitious entry made by the Lekhpal the basis of the order dated 9.8.1985 prior to this deed there was no existence of the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue record. And the property in dispute stand recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as pond, forest, banjar and drainage. And it is obvious from the circumstances that the Petitioner with the connivance of Lekhpal procured this entry of his name without any basis. No such case was filed before the consolidation authorities as alleged in the order. And the property in dispute stand recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as pond, forest, banjar and drainage. And it is obvious from the circumstances that the Petitioner with the connivance of Lekhpal procured this entry of his name without any basis. No such case was filed before the consolidation authorities as alleged in the order. If entry on the face of it, appears forged then no right title will accrue in favour of the beneficiary. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties cited Sri Ram v. Gaon Sabha, 1997 (88) RD 549 (BR): 1997 (3) AWC 3.118 ; Chandra Datta v. State Etc., 1992 RD 160 (BR): 1992 (1) AWC 57. It has been held in these rulings that if forged entry coming in records then there is no principle to afford an opportunity of hearing. The revisionists have managed the entries in records after consolidation operation was over. But it is a fact that these judgment are of Board of Revenue. Even then a principle has been laid down by the Board of Revenue. However, the counsel for the opposite parties also cited Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs. Fakhrul Hassan and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 642 it has been held "It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged for fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. The Allahabad High Court in Prem Pal Singh v. Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U. P., Allahabad and Ors. 2002 (20) LCD 953: 2002 (5) AWC 3562 also held that "fraud and concealment-Held, vitiates most solemn proceedings and the benefit obtained by any party become void." The same principle has been followed in Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of U. P. and Ors. 2005 (23) LCD 377 ; U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Kewal Ram and Ors. 2002 (20) LCD 953: 2002 (5) AWC 3562 also held that "fraud and concealment-Held, vitiates most solemn proceedings and the benefit obtained by any party become void." The same principle has been followed in Radhey Shyam Sharma v. State of U. P. and Ors. 2005 (23) LCD 377 ; U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Kewal Ram and Ors. 1997 (15) LCD 717: 1997 (2) AWC 2 .208 (SC) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Ors. 2000 (18) LCD 586 : 2000 (2) AWC 1349 (SC). 14. In view of these rulings if the entries were procured by playing fraud then no benefit can be given to such person. And in the present case, it appears that the entries are fictitious obtained fraudulently by the Petitioner with connivance of the Lekhpal. And it can be inferred that the Petitioner has not come with clean hands and he himself is guilty for forgery. 15. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the Petitioner after manipulating the entry in his favour also sold the part of the land to Santosh Kumar Pandey and Neeraj Dwivedi and these persons purchased the land fully knowing that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha. It has further been alleged that the State Pollution Control Board also acquired land of plot No. 150 area 0.531 hectare during the pendency of this present petition. And the Petitioner also got the compensation from the Pollution Control Board to the tune of Rs. 5,73,303.57 and the Petitioner incurred heavy loss to the Gaon Sabha. These facts have not been disputed and it is evident that the Petitioner manipulated the fictitious entry of his name in the revenue records over the property in dispute and also transferred the property in dispute and also got the compensation from the Pollution Control Board of the acquired land without any right and title. The land in dispute belonged to the Gaon Sabha and the Petitioner manipulated all this by forgery. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, mentioned above, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner has not come with clean hands and as the act of the Petitioner is fraudulent and he manipulated fictitious entry in his favour he has got no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, mentioned above, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner has not come with clean hands and as the act of the Petitioner is fraudulent and he manipulated fictitious entry in his favour he has got no right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. There was no order of the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer of Consolidation in existence to make the entry of the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records over the property in dispute. Earlier to consolidation operation there was also no entry in the revenue records of the name of the Petitioner. There was no basis for the consolidation authorities also to have passed the order for incorporating the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records over the property in dispute. The Petitioner never acquired this land either on the basis of lease deed executed by Ex-Zamindar or by any other instrument. There appears no basis that how and on what basis the entry appeared in revenue record all of sudden. No such objections was filed before the Consolidation Officer and no appeal was also filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Hence, there was no question of passing any order in favour of the Petitioner for making entry in the revenue records. When the entry on the face of it were forged then the revenue authorities were justified to pass an order for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the land of the Gaon Sabha u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and it is a clear cut case of forgery in the revenue records, so as to cause wrongful loss to the Gaon Sabha. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it will appropriate in the circumstances of the case to give a direction to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, to conduct an inquiry in the matter in order to ascertain the involvement and complicity of the official concerned and appropriate departmental and criminal action must be taken against them and the District Magistrate is also expected to initiate the proceedings for restoration of the property to Gaon Sabha as the Petitioner himself is guilty for fraud hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed with fine of Rs. 10,000. 17. 10,000. 17. The writ petition is dismissed and the fine Rs. 10,000 imposed upon the Petitioner for filing false and frivolous writ petition and obtaining ex parte stay order on the basis of false facts and depriving the Gaon Sabha from the valuable property in dispute. The registry of this Court will send a copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur for ensuring appropriate action against the guilty person. After realization of amount of fine, the same shall be deposited in the account of Legal Service Authority High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow for utilization in order to render free legal aid to poor litigants.