JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—By means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the judgment and orders dated 21st of November, 2007 passed by the Board of Revenue, Lucknow in revision No. 130 LR/2003-2004: Radhey Shyam and others v. Heera Lal and others, as well as the order dated 8.6.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur. 2. The dispute relates to the plot No. 92/2 situate in village Jagdishpur, Tappa Kone, Tehsil Sadar, district-Mirzapur. The said plot was in the name of Subalak in the year 1347 Fasli and 1356 Fasli. 3. The contesting respondents herein are the decedents of Subalak. However, in 1359 Fasli name of Ram Khelawan was entered into the Revenue record. The said Revenue entries continued. The village was notified for consolidation. No objection was filed by Subalak or his sons etc. and the Revenue entry continued in the name of Ram Khelawan. After a long period of time, proceedings were initiated by Subalak to correct the Revenue record under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, giving rise to the present writ petition. It was registered as Case No. 11 of 2003 under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar, Mirzapur who by the order dated 8.6.2004 held that name of Subalak son of Beni was continuing in the Revenue record since 1347 Fasli. His name was recorded in 1356 Fasli as well as in 1359 Fasli. For the first time, his name was scored off in 1359 Fasli unauthorizedly. In the remarks column, no reason for scoring off name of Subalak has been mentioned. He, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, held that entry in the name of Ram Khelawan made for the first time in the year 1359 Fasli is forged and unauthorized one. Consequently, it ordered the expunction of name of Ram Khelawan and ordered for mutation of names of Kisori Lal, Hari Lal, Bihari Lal all sons of Subalak. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the Board of Revenue in revision No. 130 LR of 2003-2004/Mirzapur. 4. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities below committed illegality in striking out the long standing Revenue entries. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the Board of Revenue in revision No. 130 LR of 2003-2004/Mirzapur. 4. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the authorities below committed illegality in striking out the long standing Revenue entries. Elaborating the argument, he submits that there was a litigation between the parties in Civil Court and Revenue Court as well. No objections were filed during the consolidation operation and as such the present proceeding is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. CH Act. He submits that a civil suit No. 718 of 1996 was filed which was dismissed and the present proceedings are, therefore, barred in as much as a second suit is barred under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the present is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in as much as the present writ arises out of mutation proceeding wherein right, title or interest of the parties are not decided and these proceedings are summary in nature. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Bharose Lal v. State of U.P., 1990 All CJ 749. Name of Subalak was recorded in 1347 Fasli as well as in 1356 Fasli. His name was struck off for the first time in 1359 Fasli. The submission is that name of Subalak was struck off from the Revenue record by manipulation and it is a case of fraud, therefore, no benefit will be conferred on the petitioners. Fraud vitiates the every solemn act. The proceedings will not be barred by Section 49 of the U.P.CH Act. 6. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the very outset, it may be noted that there appears to be no dispute nor it can be disputed at this stage that name of Subalak was recorded in the Revenue record in 1347 Fasli. Name of Ram Khelawan was entered for the first time in 1359 Fasli. How and why name of Subalak was scored of and it was replaced by name of Ram Khelawan is not mentioned in the Revenue record. Name of Ram Khelawan was entered for the first time in 1359 Fasli. How and why name of Subalak was scored of and it was replaced by name of Ram Khelawan is not mentioned in the Revenue record. The authorities have examined the entries and have found that there is no reason for striking out the name of Subalak from the Revenue record. They have taken into consideration the attending facts and circumstances of the case and have held that name of Subalak continued from 1347 Fasli to 1359 Fasli which clearly shows that the entry in favour of Ram Khelawan in 1359 Fasli is forged and as such Ram Khelawan cannot draw any benefit therefrom. 8. The Board of Revenue as well as the S.D.O. have examined the record and found that there is no mention of any order on the basis of which name of Ram Khelawan was entered into after expunging the name of Subalak. In the Revenue record period of tenancy has been mentioned as 11 years in 1359 Falsi which also corroborates the case of the respondents that Subalak continued to be recorded in 1359 Fasli. Had there been mention of period of one year against the name of Ram Khelawan, the position might have been different, but it is not so. It may be noted that record of 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli are of great importance. Zamindari has been abolished w.e.f. 1st of July, 1952. These records relate to preceding settlement of abolition of Zamindari and immediately subsequent to the abolition of Zamindari. The Revenue records as they stand do show that name of Subalak continued to be recorded during these relevant years. There being no explanation whatsoever as to how name of Ram Khelawan was entered into, leads to irresistible conclusion that name of Ram Subalak was struck off fraudulently. 9. The Apex Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others v. Govt. of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221 , has held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam. A judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as non est and nullity. Fraud can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 10. of A.P. and others, (2007) 4 SCC 221 , has held that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam. A judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as non est and nullity. Fraud can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. 10. This being so, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the present proceedings are barred by Section 49 of the U.P. CH Act has got no substance and is meritless. 11. The crux of the matter as noticed in Board’s order is as follows : “In the entire revision, the revisionist have failed to explain as to how the land recorded in then name of Subalak 1347-1356 Fasli, came in the name of Ram Khelawan in the 1359 Fasli and have failed to prove that they have any authentic basis of claim.” 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner except raising the argument that the present proceedings are barred by Section 49 of the U.P. CH Act could not explain as to how the land came to be recorded in the name of Ram Khelawan. This being so, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as substantial justice has been done. If the impugned orders are set aside, it will amount giving premium to fraud for which Courts are not meant for. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others: AIR 1976 SC 1485 , wherein it has been laid down that the entries in revenue record are, 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 and fraudulent entries. 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. 14. The Sub Divisional Officer has noted in his order the explanation furnished by the respondents for not raising any objection during the consolidation operation. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. 14. The Sub Divisional Officer has noted in his order the explanation furnished by the respondents for not raising any objection during the consolidation operation. The respondents came out with the case that they are illiterate persons and were away from the village in connection of their livelihood at Dhanbad. They belong to Scheduled Caste Category and are illiterate persons and had no knowledge about the revenue records. As soon as they came to know about the manipulation in the revenue records, application under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was filed. The explanation given by them is plausible and appeals to reason in absence of any denial by the petitioners. 15. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 , has held that Court should not lend its support to a tax evader, property grabber or a person who has not approached Court with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. 16. The case of the petitioners is that during their lifetime Subalak never put any claim nor he raised any objection about the plot in question even during the consolidation proceeding and therefore, the present proceeding is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.CH Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners reiterated the said plea before this Court but could not place any material to show as to why and how name of Subalak was expunged from the Revenue record. On undisputed facts, the name of Subalak was found recorded in 1347 Fasli, 1356 Fasli and even in 1359 Fasli. In 1359 Fasli, as noted herein above, the period of tenancy has been mentioned as 11 years. The authorities below on a careful consideration of the material available on record and on admitted facts found that even after the abolition of Zamindari, name of Subalak was recorded in the Revenue record i.e. in 1359 Fasli. On these facts, the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.CH Act will not apply as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, 1980 RD 300 (SC). On these facts, the bar of Section 49 of the U.P.CH Act will not apply as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, 1980 RD 300 (SC). The essential facts of case of Karbalai Begum are almost identical to the facts of the case on hand. No authority could be placed by the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in support of his above plea. The said plea has got no force and therefore, is rejected. 17. Another argument was raised by the petitioners that a civil suit being suit No. 10 of 2003 was filed and the said suit was dismissed in default subsequently. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that no second suit could be filed in view of Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C and therefore, the present proceeding is also barred. On a careful consideration of the said submission, I find no substance therein. Firstly, no such plea was raised before the Courts below. The record lacks sufficient material to support the said plea. A reference was made to the plaint of the suit No. 10 of 2003 (Annexure-8) and the order of the Civil Court dated 26th of December, 2003 which is on page No. 48 of the Paper Book. The suit was dismissed for not taking steps. Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. bars the filing of second suit only when defendant appears and plaintiff fails to appear as provided under Order 9 Rule 8 of C.P.C.. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant was served and was present. The opening sentence of Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. which bars fresh suit, provides that where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under Rule 8. Rule 8 prescribes the procedure where defendant only appears. It is not the case of petitioners that the suit was dismissed where the petitioners appeared and plaintiff failed to appear when the suit was called for hearing. This being so, the argument that the mutation proceedings are barred in view of the principle laid down under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., has got no substance. 18. It is not the case of petitioners that the suit was dismissed where the petitioners appeared and plaintiff failed to appear when the suit was called for hearing. This being so, the argument that the mutation proceedings are barred in view of the principle laid down under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., has got no substance. 18. Before parting with the case, I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Bharose Lal (supra), the writ petition is not maintainable. The relevant portion from the said judgment is extracted below : “7. As a matter of fact, the mutation proceedings may be under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or under some other similar Act, but the legal effect in both the events remains the same. These proceedings do not decide the right or title of the parties rather these proceedings are just fiscal in nature. They have just got legal effect of entering name of vendee.” 19. In the result, the writ petition fails and is therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). ————