Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Govind Narain Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri K.C. Kishan Srivastava for the respondents. 3. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5.7.2013 and 24.12.2013 by which the correction has been made in the consolidation records regarding the abadi of plot nos. 685, 687 ka, 687 kha, 687/1487 and 687 gha and these plots were directed to be recorded as abadi land. 4. The recall application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the order dated 24.12.2013. Amarnath Yadav, respondent-6 filed an application before the Collector, Jaunpur that by making forgery, plot no. 687 kha, area 1 acre, was recorded in the name of the petitioners, as such, the forged entry be corrected. The Collector directed the Chief Revenue Officer to conduct an inquiry who after taking the inquiry submitted a report dated 19.1.2013. In this report , it has been mentioned that plot no. 378 was recorded as abadi in old records. During consolidation from plot no. 378, new plot nos. 685, 687 ka, 687 kha, 687/1487 and 687 gha were carved out as the abadi land. However by making forgery, plot no. 687/2 was recorded in the name of the petitioners. A perusal of khatauni 1359 F shows that entire area of plot no. 378/1 was recorded as 2.32 acre out of which 2.12 acre was abadi and 0.11 acre was rasta and 0.09 acre was grove of Zamindar and plot no. 378/2, area 4.45 acre was recorded as abadi. Thus the entire area of 6.56 acre was abadi and 0.12 acre was rasta land and same entry continued in 1371 F to 1373 F, as such, there was no area of plot no. 387 was in cultivation of any other tenure holder. By making forgery in consolidation records plot no. 378/3, area 1 acre, has been added in the khata of Bahadur Ram in 1383 -1388 F and on its basis the further forgery has been made in consolidation records. It was clearly found that there was cutting in CH Form 2 A, CH Form 11 and CH Form 23 and by making overwriting the land in dispute was came to be recorded in the name of Bahadur Ram. Thereafter the matter was referred to Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was clearly found that there was cutting in CH Form 2 A, CH Form 11 and CH Form 23 and by making overwriting the land in dispute was came to be recorded in the name of Bahadur Ram. Thereafter the matter was referred to Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also called for a report from the Consolidation Officer who also in his report confirmed the aforesaid fact. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, accordingly, by order dated 5.7.2013 directed for recording plot no. 685, 687 ka, 687 kha, 687/1487 and 687 gha as abadi land. The petitioners filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation who by order dated 24.12.2013 found that as the land in dispute was abadi land prior to consolidation, as such, it was rightly directed to be recorded as abadi and there is no justification to recall the order. On this finding the recall application was rejected by order dated 24.12.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute was allotted to Bahadur Ram by Zamindar on 2.7.1949 and on the basis of patta executed by Zamindar, name of Bahadur Ram was recorded in khatauni 1358 F and thereafter his name was continued in 1383-1388 F khatauni. Accordingly, in consolidation, this area was came to be recorded in CH Form 11, relating to Bahadur Ram and chak was carved out in this respect of which new number has been allotted as 687 kha. Bahadur Ram executed a Will dated 10.3.1999 and after death of Bahadur Ram, the petitioners have inherited the land in dispute on the basis of aforesaid Will. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the records. A perusal of alleged Will of Bahadur Ram dated 10.3.1999, it is apparent that new plot no. 787, area 0.65 acre, was mentioned in it therefore even after consolidation and at the time of execution of the Will dated 10.3.1999, Bahadur Ram was not deriving his title over plot no. 687 kha. The fact that Bahadur Ram executed a Will only in respect of plot no. 787, clearly shows that Bahadur Ram through out his life time, has never claimed his title over plot no. 378 (new plot no. 687 kha. The fact that Bahadur Ram executed a Will only in respect of plot no. 787, clearly shows that Bahadur Ram through out his life time, has never claimed his title over plot no. 378 (new plot no. 687 kha), and the findings of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation that by making forgery in various revenue as well as consolidation records, plot no. 378 has been recorded in the name of Bahadur Ram, appears to be correct and fully corroborated with the Will executed by Bahadur Ram dated 10.3.1999. The petitioners have no case at all. 7. Therefore no interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. ______________