JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.S. Chauhan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Through the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue and the consequential order dated 18.9.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition. 3. The dispute relates to plots No. 54-M, 62-M, 73 & 99/1 having total area 170 bigha, 3 biswa and 19 biswansi at village Dehli Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Kanpur Nagar. In the basic year the land was recorded as Usar and Banjar in 1359 fasli. Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act (for short “the Act”) were initiated by the Tehsildar on the ground that the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 have been wrongly and fraudulently recorded in the revenue records and as such, a recommendation was made for expunging the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and recording the name of Kanpur Development Authority. The Sub-Divisional Officer proceeded to expunge the entry in the names of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and the name of the Kanpur Development Authority was entered in the revenue record vide order dated 5.5.1995. Against the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, a revision was filed under Section 218 of the Act by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 before the Commissioner of the Division and the Commissioner vide order dated 30.1.1996 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.6.1996 confirming the order of the Commissioner set aside the order dated 5.5.1995 and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for giving opportunity to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. After remand of the matter notices were issued to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and opposite parties No. 2 to 7 participated in the proceedings. The Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.8.1999 maintained the earlier order and came to the conclusion that the sale-deed executed by the wife of ex-barrister A. Hume was not valid sale-deed and is without authority of law and so, no right will accruetg in favour of opposite parties No. 2 to 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer on 6.8.1999 maintained the earlier order and came to the conclusion that the sale-deed executed by the wife of ex-barrister A. Hume was not valid sale-deed and is without authority of law and so, no right will accruetg in favour of opposite parties No. 2 to 7. The said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was subjected to challenge before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 12.11.2002 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 6.8.1999. 4. Petitioners challenged the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue through Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005 and the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and order dated 27.04.2007. The petitioners thereafter filed a Regular Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short the “the Z.A. Act”) before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur Nagar, which was numbered as Suit No. 209/64 of 2006 in which written statement was filed by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and the matter is pending for adjudication before the Sub Divisional Officer. In the meantime, it is alleged that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005, an application was moved by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 for enforcing the order dated 12.11.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue passed an order on 11.5.2006 mentioning therein that if there is no stay order against the order dated 12.11.2002, heirs of Chhedi Lal, Mahohar Lal and Vijay Kumar sons of Khunnu Lal may be given possession over the land in dispute. As a consequence of the aforesaid order dated 11.5.2006, an order has been passed by the District Magistrate on 18.9.2008. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a notification has been issued by the State Government wherein the land in question has been vested with the Kanpur Development Authority. As a consequence of the aforesaid order dated 11.5.2006, an order has been passed by the District Magistrate on 18.9.2008. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a notification has been issued by the State Government wherein the land in question has been vested with the Kanpur Development Authority. Opposite parties No. 2 to 7 cannot claim any right against the aforesaid land which has vested with the Petitioners on account of notification issued by the State of U.P. It is also submitted that Board of Revenue was having no jurisdiction to pass such an order directing delivery of possession as the title dispute has not been decided up till now and is pending in the form of Regular Suit before the Competent Court. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that once the order dated 12.11.2002 has become final then the same is to be carried out in the revenue records and accordingly the possession is also required to be given to opposite parties No. 2 to 7 which was taken on the high-handedness of the petitioners with the aid of district administration. It is also submitted that no interim injunction has been passed in the Suit and the Suit is pending. Once the order of the Board of Revenue has become final, it is bound to be carried out in the revenue records. The entry in the revenue records does not mean entry in the revenue records only but it includes delivery of possession as well. He has placed reliance upon Section 34 of the Act as well as Rule 155 of the U.P. Land Revenue Rules (for short “the Rules”) to contend that the orders of the appellate authority are to be carried out by the subordinate revenue authorities. He has submitted that as and when an order is mutated in the revenue records, possession to the party is inbuilt and inherent in the aforesaid exercise otherwise there will be no purpose of passing the order by the Board of Revenue which does not tend into any fruitful result. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. It is evident that ex-parte order dated 5.5.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.6.1996. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. It is evident that ex-parte order dated 5.5.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.6.1996. After remand of the matter Sub Divisional Officer again proceeded to decide the original case and ultimately vide order dated 06.08.1999 reiterated the earlier order and reached on the same conclusion. The aforesaid order was challenged by opposite parties No. 2 to 7 before the Board of Revenue at Lucknow and the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 12.11.2002 allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kanpur Nagar. Learned Board of Revenue directed the names of the contesting opposite parties to be recorded in the revenue records as it was there in the earlier point of time i.e. before the date of passing of the order dated 5.5.1995. The petitioners feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 12.11.2002 preferred Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005 before this Court and this Court dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12.11.2002 attained finality. The petitioners have tried to demolish the order passed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that they have filed a Suit under Section 229-B of the Z.A. Act. 9. The question which falls for consideration is as to in what manner the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 12.11.2002 which has become final vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17206 of 2005 is to be implemented. The procedure for implementing the orders of the appellate authorities and higher forum is provided under Rule 155 of the Rules, which is quoted below : “155. Giving effect to the orders passed.—All files in which orders are passed by the ordinary district Courts under Rules 150 and 152 or by the appellate Courts for changes to be made in the entries standing in the year previous to the year of record will be forwarded to the Record Officer for effect being given to them in the fair record of and a note being made in the mutation register as well, where necessary. During the period of his stay at the Record Officer the Registrar Kanungo will keep the mutation register there with him.” 10. Section 32 of the Act deals with the record of rights and provides that there shall be a record of rights for each village subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by rules made under the provisions of Section 234 of the Act. The record of rights shall consist of a register of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specifying the particulars required by Section 55. For ready reference Section 32 is quoted as under:- “32. Record-of-rights.—There shall be a record of rights for each village subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by rules made under the provisions of Section 234. The record of rights shall consist of a register of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specifying the particulars required by Section 55.” 11. Since the particulars are required by Section 55 of the Act, therefore, Section 55 is quoted hereunder:- “55. Particulars to be stated in list of tenants.—The register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land prescribed by Clause (e) of Section 32 shall specify as to each tenant the following particulars : (a) the nature and class of his tenure as determined by the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939, (U.P. Act XVII of 1939). (b) the rent payable by the tenant; (c) * * * * (d) any other condition of the tenure which the Provincial Government may, by rules made under Section 234; required to be recorded. The register shall also specify the proprietors or under-proprietors (if any) holding land as sir, or cultivating land not being sir, otherwise than as tenants and shall state with respect to the latter class of land the number of completed years during which they have so cultivated.” 12. Section 32 if read along with Section 55 of the Act, it is clear that entry and class of the tenure holder has to be mentioned and the register pertaining to rights is to contain the names of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specified in Section 32 which also talks about possession. 13. Section 32 if read along with Section 55 of the Act, it is clear that entry and class of the tenure holder has to be mentioned and the register pertaining to rights is to contain the names of all persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land specified in Section 32 which also talks about possession. 13. Rule 155 of the Rules also imposes duty upon the record officer to make entry in the records and implement the orders passed by the appellate Courts and Rule 156 of the Rules also lays down that all cases decided and orders passed by the Record Officer, whether summarily under Rule 154 or in a regular manner under Rule 155 will be duly entered in Mislband register. Rule 156 of the Rules is reproduced hereunder : “156. Entries in Mislband register.—(1) All the cases decided and orders passed by the Record Officer, whether summarily under Rule 154 or in a regular manner under Rule 155 will be duly entered in Mislband register; and when it is not possible to prepare a separate file in case of a summary order passed on the attestation slip or dispute lists, etc., proper reference of the record containing the order will invariably be given in the remarks column of the register. (2) The summary decisions will be counted separately from regular decisions and their full details given on a separate serial in the reports and statements pertaining to cases. For this purpose the cases decided summarily will be entered in the Mislband register separately from the regular ones after assigning a number of pages for each of them. (3) A clear note will be made in the remarks column of the Mislband register against each case or order directing change in the entries as to what steps were taken to give effect to it in the revenue records.” 14. Apart from above Rule, paragraph-521 of the U.P. Land Records Manual also provides that it shall be the statutory obligation of the Collector to maintain the record of rights through the medium of annual registers. In order to discharge this obligation, he has to keep himself in constant touch with the land records of his district and to see that the staff responsible for their preparation and supervision does its duty and makes a united effort to make them as accurate a record of rights and statistical data as possible. In order to discharge this obligation, he has to keep himself in constant touch with the land records of his district and to see that the staff responsible for their preparation and supervision does its duty and makes a united effort to make them as accurate a record of rights and statistical data as possible. 15. Paragraph-526 of the U.P. Land Records Manual also deals with the inspection of mutation work from time to time and emphasises that erroneous mutation orders should be corrected at once. 16. Thus, from the scheme of the Act, it is evident that any order passed by the Board of Revenue is to be implemented in the revenue records and in case, there is failure on the part of the revenue authorities to carry out the aforesaid orders passed by the Board of Revenue which have received approval by this Court, then certainly the doctrine of necessity comes to the rescue of opposite parties No. 2 to 7 and the Board of Revenue was fully justified in passing the aforesaid order for delivering the possession. 17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has relief upon the cases of M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1981 SC 1681 , Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another, JT 2003 (6) SC 20 and Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. and another v. V.U. Warrier, JT 2005 (4) SC 489. 18. In the case of M/s Hindustan Sugar Mills (supra), the Apex Court held as under : “Where there is such a clause, the Central Government is bound to pay the amount of sales tax on the freight component of the price and we hope and trust that the Central Government will honour its legal obligation and not drive the appellant to file a suit for recovery of the amount of such sales tax. We hopefully expect that the Central Government will not try to shirk its legal obligation by resorting to any legal technicalities, for we maintain that in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, it is the duty of the State to do what is fair and just to the citizen, and the State should not seek to defeat the legitimate claim of the citizen by adopting a legalistic attitude but should do what fairness and justice demand.” 19. In the case of Chandra Singh (supra) the Apex Court held has under : “In any event, even assuming that there is some force in the contention of the appellants, this Court will be justified in following Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, JT 1999 (2) SC 45; (1999) 2 SCC 635 , wherein this Court declared that even if the appellants contention is right in law having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, this Court would be justified in declining to grant relief under Article 136 while declaring the law in favour of the appellants. Issuance of a writ of Certiorari is a discretionary remedy. [See Champalal Binani v. CIT, West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 645 ]. The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. [See S.D.S. Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2003 (4) Supreme 44 ]. Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order which will be complete justice to the parties.” 20. In the case of Secretary, O.N.G.C. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court held as under: “The matter can be considered from another angle also. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that Article can be exercised by the High Court “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power under that Article can be exercised by the High Court “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. Before more than fifty years, in G. Veerappa Pillai, Properietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman & Raman Ltd., Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and others, 1952 SCR 583 , the Constitution Bench of this Court speaking through Chandrasekhara Aiyer, J., observed that the writs referred to in Article 226 of the Constitution are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them “in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice.” (Emphasis supplied) Similarly, in the leading case of Sangram Singh v. Election Commissioner, Kotah and another, (1955) 2 SCR 1 , dealing with the ambit and scope of powers of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, Bose, J. stated— “That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not, and should not, act as Courts of appeal under Article 226. Their powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must be exercised along with the recognized lines and not arbitrarily; and one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned into Courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense, for, though no legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case. (Emphasis supplied)” 21. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of case. (Emphasis supplied)” 21. The entry does not mean the simple entry in the revenue records; entry means entry in the revenue records along with possession. If the Court takes any other view then there will be ceaseless litigation in the society. No person would be able to get possession at any point of time and muscle power will play the pivotal role and the people who are having judgment from the Court will run from pillar to post for seeking possession and thereby institute miscellaneous proceedings for delivery of possession. Said action on the part of the Government Officials or Government Authorities cannot be appreciated and Authorities were duty bound to carry out the order of the Board of Revenue in the revenue records. If they have failed to carry out the aforesaid order, then there was no option left to the Board of Revenue but to direct them to carry out the order in the revenue records along with delivery of possession. 22. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, the writ petition is dismissed. ————