JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The prayer in this writ petition is that writ of mandamus may be issued “commanding respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to ensure the compliance of the orders dated 11.6.2008 and 10.7.2009 passed by the (sic S.O.C. (new unit) Jaunpur) and respondents may be restrained from raising any construction over the Bhomidhari plots of the petitioners i.e. plot Nos. 101 and 110 situate at village Pilkhini, Pargana Saremu, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur”. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are C.O. (Consolidation Officer) Kirtapur-I, District Jaunpur, C.O. Dharmapur district Jaunpur and Station Officer Police Station Gaura, Badshapur, district Jaunpur. Order dated 11.6.2008 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It has been passed by S.O.C. Jaunpur. At the top of the order case number is mentioned as 889 under Section 45-A. Names of the parties are not given. It is a direction to C.O. It is stated in the said order that Chandrika Prasad and others (petitioners) have filed an application under Section 45-A to the effect that they are owner in possession and Bhoomidhar of plot Nos. 101 and 110 situate in the village in question, that plot No. 110 is being used as Abadi and Sehan (courtyard) that both the plots are included in each other that opposite parties Subhash Singh, Vakil Singh and Awadesh Singh without obtaining permission and illegally and through force intend to make construction and on being asked to desist they threaten to quarrel and they intend to usurp disputed land/abadi and they must be restrained from making construction and taking possession. Thereafter it was directed that C.O. must get the spot inspected and in case it was found that without any permission some construction was being made by the respondents over the plot in dispute then the same at once be got stopped. Compliance report should be sent. Thereafter it is mentioned that the copy of the said order should be sent to S.H.O. (Thana Adhyaksha) concerned for sending requisite police force for stopping any construction if respondents were making it without permission so that law and order might be maintained. Order of S.O.C. Jaunpur (new unit) dated 10.7.2009 is Annexure IV to the writ petition. The number of the case in which the said order has been passed is shown to be 65/reader. Order of S.O.C. Jaunpur (new unit) dated 10.7.2009 is Annexure IV to the writ petition. The number of the case in which the said order has been passed is shown to be 65/reader. The said order is also addressed to C.O. Kirtapur first stating that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 45-A to the effect that they are owners in possession and Bhoomidhar of both the above plots and that plot No. 110 M area 1.00 is entered in the name of Gangadhar and still name of legal representatives of Gangadhar has not been entered in the revenue record. Rest of the allegations were same as mentioned in the earlier order dated 11.6.2008 and similar direction was issued as was issued through the previous order. At the end of the said order it is mentioned that copy should be sent to S.H.O. concerned so that he could also take action at his level and supply requisite police force to consolidation staff. 3. The Court wonders how such orders could be passed by S.O.C. In the orders particularly in the first order it is categorically mentioned that land in dispute is abadi. Consolidation Authorities have got no right to determine the rights of the parties in respect of Abadi land. Abadi land is to be kept out of the Consolidation operation. 4. It is highly doubtful as to whether Consolidation Authorities have got any power to issue injunction orders vide Akala Devi v. D.D.C., 2001 RJ 996 : 2003 (Suppl.) RD 288. 5. Even if it is assumed that Consolidation authorities have got power to issue injunction order restraining someone from making construction etc. then it can be done only in a regular case and not on a miscellaneous application and that also on that very date on which application is filed. 6. From the perusal of first order wherein it is mentioned that one of the purposes of the order was that law and order should be maintained it is clear that the S.O.C. was acting like a Magistrate and not issuing an injunction under Section 5-C. In any case S.O.C. has absolutely no jurisdiction, authority or business to direct the police authorities to provide adequate force for stopping some one from making construction. 7. 7. In the impugned orders there is no mention that S.O.C. was satisfied that plots in dispute were entered in the names of the petitioners. From the second order it is quite clear that at least one of the plots i.e. plot No. 110 was not even entered in the name of the petitioners. 8. Under Section 5 (1)(c)(i) it is provided that after start of Consolidation operation no tenure holder except with the permission of S.O.C. shall use his holding for purposes not connected with agricultural etc. under Section 45-A(1) of the Act it is provided that : “Any person contravening the provisions of Section 5 (1)(c)(i) shall, on conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction, be liable to a fine not exceeding rupees one thousand.” 9. In the application given by the petitioners it was asserted/implied that petitioners were tenure holders accordingly under the aforesaid section only they could be restrained and none other. If someone wants to forcibly dispossess a tenure holder and make construction on his holding then it is purely jurisdiction of the Civil Court to prevent such activity and not of the Consolidation Courts. 10. Accordingly, I find that the orders sought to be enforced and complied with through this writ petition are utterly without jurisdiction, illegal and passed only and only to unduly benefit the petitioners. It is apparent that the orders have been passed on extraneous consideration. The orders may well be described as absurd. 11. Now the main point involved in this writ petition is to be decided. The question is as to whether High Court is duty bound to issue a writ of Mandamus directing compliance of such orders passed by some officer or lower Court which the High Court considers to be illegal, unjust without jurisdiction or even absurd. Answer is obviously in the negative. The High Court outrightly refuses to be reduced to the status of Court meant for executing the orders passed by Consolidation authorities or other officers or subordinate Courts. 12. It is fundamental principle of execution that either it must be filed before the same Court/authority which passed the orders sought to be executed/enforced or before the lower Court or authority. The reason behind this principle is that the same Court/authority or the lower Court or authority has got no business to judge the validity or otherwise of the orders sought to be enforced. The reason behind this principle is that the same Court/authority or the lower Court or authority has got no business to judge the validity or otherwise of the orders sought to be enforced. However, it is not so in case of higher officer authority or Court on which such orders are not binding. In such writ petitions as the present one High Court is placed in a piquant situation. It cannot set aside the order even if it is found to be illegal for the reason that it has not been challenged. On the other hand it is required to enforce the said order on the ground that an order passed by any officer/authority/Court must be obeyed by his subordinates. If High Court issues a mandamus for compliance of an illegal order it means that it is putting its seal of approval on the said order and the authorities below would be still more bound to implement the said order as it has merged in the direction of the High Court for compliance. 13. Even if a huge presumption is made in favour of the petitioner that High Court can be used as the executing Court, still every executing Court has got jurisdiction to refuse execution of without jurisdictional orders. 14. To take an extreme example, suppose a consolidation officer or Tehsildar passes an order that prime Gaon Sabha land must be mutated in the name of his wife, can the wife of C.O. or Tehsildar file writ petition for compliance of that order? 15. In a case decided by me and reported in Gauri Shanker Tiwari v. Board of Revenue, 2009(6) ADJ 301 , services of an Assistant Registrar Kanoongo in the revenue department were terminated on the ground that he had mutated 70 bighas of forest land in the name of his own wife and family members of one of his colleagues on the basis of non-existent, fake orders of civil Court and Tehsildar. Whether the wife of that Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo and family members of his colleague could seek enforcement and compliance of the said orders and actual mutation of forest land in their names? The answer to this question is quite obvious. 16. Whether the wife of that Assistant Registrar, Kanoongo and family members of his colleague could seek enforcement and compliance of the said orders and actual mutation of forest land in their names? The answer to this question is quite obvious. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this Court in this writ petition has got no jurisdiction to hold that the orders sought to be implemented are bad in law as said orders have not been challenged and that this Court is further duty bound to issue requisite mandamus. In this regard two authorities have been cited. One is reported in Smt. Jagannathiya v. State of U.P., 2006(5) ADJ 275 . Firstly, that is only an interim order. Secondly, the Court did not find the injunction order passed by the civil Court (violation of which was complained of in the writ petition) to be bad in law. The last two paragraphs of the said authority are quoted below : "22. In the fact-situation we have no option but to direct the Civil Court to issue necessary orders to the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi to take all measures to ensure the compliance of the interim orders passed by it at the earliest, and we direct the said authority to ensure its compliance forthwith. We further direct the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi to file his personal affidavit within a period of three weeks from today as under what circumstances the interim order passed by the Trial Court not be complied with. 23. List the matter on 6th July, 2006." 17. The said case arose out of temporary injunction order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. by Civil Court in a suit. 18. The next authority cited is Full Bench authority reported in 1990 (2) UPLBEC 905, Tara Prasad Misra v. State of U.P. and others. The facts of the said case were that a Government employee had been transferred. Minister of Health directed Additional Director Health to intervene who wrote a letter to C.M.O. to cancel order of transfer. C.M.O. instead of cancelling order of transfer compelled the petitioner to join at transferred place. In the said circumstances according to the said authority, the High Court could issue Mandamus for enforcement of direction (requests). 19. In the said case the High Court was of the opinion that transfer order could be cancelled by the Minister. C.M.O. instead of cancelling order of transfer compelled the petitioner to join at transferred place. In the said circumstances according to the said authority, the High Court could issue Mandamus for enforcement of direction (requests). 19. In the said case the High Court was of the opinion that transfer order could be cancelled by the Minister. In para 24 of the said judgment it is mentioned as follows : “24. As pointed out above in the beginning, the writ petition has already become infructuous and, therefore, in the instant writ petition there is no question of issue of any writ of mandamus.” 20. In the said case High Court did not hold that order of Additional Director directing the C.M.O. to cancel transfer order was illegal or without jurisdiction. 21. Accordingly, in my opinion unless the High Court finds that the order sought to be implemented does not suffer from any illegality, no mandamus for its compliance may be issued. If the High Court finds that the order is illegal without jurisdiction or even absurd and still issues mandamus for its compliance then the High Court will be ridiculing itself. 22. As repeatedly such types of writ petitions are filed hence the only course left upon for the High Court in such a situation is to analyse the order sought to be enforced and if it finds it illegal without jurisdiction absurd or apparently based upon extraneous consideration then it shall set that aside. Petitioner who seeks enforcement of such an order and brings the same to the notice of the High Court cannot complain that as the said order is not under challenge hence it must not be set aside. It is the petitioner who is seeking enforcement of an order hence he must satisfy the Court that the order is perfectly legal and on his failure to do so, he must also be ready to face the consequence in the form of order by the High Court setting aside the said order in that very writ petition if High Court finds that to be illegal without jurisdiction absurd or apparently based upon extraneous consideration and passed just to favour the petitioner. 23. Accordingly, instead of enforcing the orders of S.O.C. dated 11.6.2008 and 10.7.2008 said orders are set aside. The Collector shall examine the working of the S.O.C. in respect of other cases also. 24. 23. Accordingly, instead of enforcing the orders of S.O.C. dated 11.6.2008 and 10.7.2008 said orders are set aside. The Collector shall examine the working of the S.O.C. in respect of other cases also. 24. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 25. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri N.P. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel within ten days. ————