JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri M.K. Dubey, for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, for respondent-4. Other respondents are proforma parties. The original records have been summoned as such Counsel for the respondent does not propose to file counter-affidavit and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is decided finally. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer, dated 31.1.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 2.6.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2014, passed in proceeding under section 9-A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute pertains to the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata 141 (consisting of plots 16/684 (area 0-1-0 bigha), 17 (area 1-13-0 bigha), 25-kha (area 0-5-0 bigha), 34 (area 0-2-0 bigha), 146 (area 0-5-0 bigha), 148-kha (area 0-3-0 bigha), 149 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 160 (area 1-0-0 bigha), 161-kha (area 0-11-0 bigha), 162 (area 1-0-0 bigha), 212-kha (area 1-16-0 bigha), 220-kha (area 0-2-0 bigha), 222 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 223 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 224 (area 0-3-0 bigha), 230-ka (area 0-2-0 bigha), 321-kha (area 0-14-0 bigha), 328-cha (area 0-4-0 bigha), 329 (area 6-3-0 bigha), 340-ka (area 0-10-0 bigha), 368-ka (area 6-2-0 bigha), 371 (area 0-8-0 bigha), 386 (area 1-4-0 bigha), 400-ka (area 0-11-0 bigha), 436-ga (area 0-5-0 bigha), 437-kha (area 0-2-0 bigha), 443-k (area 0-10-0 bigha), 444-kha (area 0-10-0 bigha), total 28 plots (area 24-15-0 bigha), of village Raipura, tahsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra, which were recorded in basic consolidation year in the name of Smt. Gangi, widow of Ram Surat. During partial following disputes amongst other were noted in CH Form-4 "(i) Smt. Parwati daughter of Mewa (respondent-4) claimed for recording her name and deleting the name of Smt. Gangi from the khata in dispute. (ii) Shiv Shankar (respon-dent-7) claimed for recording his name over plots 160 (area 1-0-0 bigha), 161 (area 0-11-0 bigha) on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. (iii) Amarawati (the petitioner) claimed for recording her name over plots 371 (area 0-8-0 bigha), 386 (area 1-4-0 bigha), 436-ga (area 0-5-0 bigha), 443-k (area 0-10-0 bigha) on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Surat in her favour. (iii) Amarawati (the petitioner) claimed for recording her name over plots 371 (area 0-8-0 bigha), 386 (area 1-4-0 bigha), 436-ga (area 0-5-0 bigha), 443-k (area 0-10-0 bigha) on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Surat in her favour. (iv) Zahiruddin (respondent-6) claimed for recording his name over plot 212 (area 1-16-0 bigha) on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. Various other disputes were also noted in respect of different plots of khata 141 in CH Form-4 but its reference are not relevant. Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the disputes to Consolidation Officer for decision and issued notices to the parties. Subsequently Smt. Gangi filed various objections on 28.8.1991 under section 9(2) of the Act for rejecting the claims of various persons as noted in CH Form-4. On 20.8.1991, the petitioner filed objection claiming that Smt. Gangi executed two sale deeds 17.2.1989 and 13.7.1996 of the land in dispute in her favour as such her name be recorded over the khata in dispute. During pendency of the cases, before Consolidation Officer, Smt. Gangi died in August, 1998 and in her place, Amarawati was substituted as her legal representative by order dated 11.8.1999. Smt. Parwati and Nanki filed objection on. 21.8.1991 under section 9(2) of the Act, for recording their names over the land in dispute. Smt. Nanki died in January 1996 and in her place Banarasi (respondent-5) was substituted on 12.3.1996. Zahruddin and Shiv Shankar (respondents-6 and 7) also filed their separate objections under section 9(2) of the Act." 3. All the cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer issued notices to the parties on 30.10.1991, fixing 11.11.1991. The cases were adjourned on 11.11.1991, 19.11.1991, 29.11.1991, 10.12.1991, 13.12.1991. On 18.12.1991, the parties took time for filing compromise and 20.12.1991 was fixed. On 20.12.1991, none of the parties or their Counsel appeared and Consolidation Officer decided all the cases ex-parte. Thereafter, Parwati filed an application dated 20.12.1991 for recall of the order, which was allowed on 20.12.1991. On the application "swikrit" has been mentioned. On the order-sheet "Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence of the plaintiff" has been written. Amarawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amarawati attended the Court on the date fixed in the case up to 12.12.2002. On the application "swikrit" has been mentioned. On the order-sheet "Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence of the plaintiff" has been written. Amarawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amarawati attended the Court on the date fixed in the case up to 12.12.2002. On 24.12.2002, statement of Parwati was recorded and on 5.5.2003, statement of her witness, Hanuman was recorded. On 26.10.2004, Amarawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. On 25.9.2006, order dated 13.12.1991 passed in Case Nos. 1333 and 1334 were recalled and these cases were also consolidated with Case No. 124 and 4.11.2006 was fixed for framing issues. It appears that Amarawati challenged the order dated 25.9.2006 in Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07 and thereafter absented from the Court of Consolidation Officer, who framed issues on 15.10.2007, ex-parte. Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07 was dismissed on 26.7.2007. Revision No. 43/73 of 2007-08 filed by Amarawati against the aforesaid order was dismissed in default on 4.3.2008. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer again issued notices to Amarawati and others on 26.4.2008. In spite of service, Amarawati did not appear. On 8.12.2008, Counsel for Parwati stated that evidence of Parwati had already been recorded and that may be treated evidence on her behalf. The Consolidation Officer fixed a date for arguments. On 10.5.2010, Consolidation Officer again held service on the parties was sufficient and proceeded ex parte. On 17.7.2010, Amarawati filed an application that in the application dated 20.12.1991, by fabricating order "swikrit" has been mentioned on 21.12.1991 and the petitioner be granted time to file objection in the application dated 20.12.1991 and the order dated 21.12.1991 be declared as forged. The parties filed objection and counter objection on this application and the application was heard on 3.1.2011 and 15.1.2011 was fixed for order. But in the record of Consolidation Officer, there is no order dated 15.1.2011. The case was finally decided by order dated 31.1.2011 by Consolidation Officer, who held that name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa by making forgery in the records. As such name of Ram Surat was directed to be dieted from the land in dispute and names of Parwati and Banarasi (respondents-4 and 5) were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa. 4. As such name of Ram Surat was directed to be dieted from the land in dispute and names of Parwati and Banarasi (respondents-4 and 5) were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa. 4. Amarawati (the petitioner) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 14 of 2010-11) and Zahruddin (respondent-6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 215 of 2010-11) from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by his order dated 2.6.2011 held that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled by Consolidation Officer on 20.12.1991 and the case was restored. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of Mewa son of Ram Saran in khatauni 1360-F. In khatauni 1363-F-1365-F, an amal daramad recording the name of Ram Surat was made, on the basis of order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that how name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa. Tahsildar had no right to delete the name of Mewa and record the name of Ram Surat. It has been proved from the evidence on record by respondents-4 and 5 that Parwati and Nanki were daughters and heirs of Mewa. On these findings the appeals were dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 33/33/40/83 of 2013-14) and Zahruddin filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 32/32/39/82 of 2013-14) against the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 18.7.2014, affirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation and dismissed the revisions. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that various miscellaneous applications were heard by Consolidation Officer, who instead of deciding the applications decided the cases on merit without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The cases were already decided by Consolidation Officer, by order dated 20.12.1991. Subsequent order dated 31.1.2011 was without jurisdiction. The recall application filed by Smt. Parwati was directed to be put up along with record on 30.12.1991 and remained undecided. However, by making forgery an order "swikrit" has been mentioned on the application in date 21.12.1991. The application was directed to be put on 30.12.1991 and there was no occasion for passing any order on 21.12.1991. The recall application filed by Smt. Parwati was directed to be put up along with record on 30.12.1991 and remained undecided. However, by making forgery an order "swikrit" has been mentioned on the application in date 21.12.1991. The application was directed to be put on 30.12.1991 and there was no occasion for passing any order on 21.12.1991. Name of Ram Surat (predecessor of the petitioner) was recorded over the land in dispute by order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955 and an amal daramad was made in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F. Mewa was although alive but never challenged the order during his life time. After death of Mewa his widow and the alleged daughters never tried to get their names mutated in the revenue records. For the first time respondents-4 and 5 filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 110 of 1988) under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for declaring them as owner of the land in dispute on 2.6.1988, which was abated under consolidation. Ram Surat died in the year 1987, then three set of mutation applications were filed before Tahsildar i.e. (i) Smt. Gangi widow of Ram Surat (ii) Radhey Shyam Singh and (iii) Shiv Murat and Tahsildar by order dated 2.7.1987 directed for mutation of the name of Smt. Gangi as an heir of Ram Surat. By order dated 30.4.1991, Tahsildar has maintained the order dated 2.7.1987. In basic consolidation year, name of Smt. Gangi was recorded over the land in dispute and burden was upon the respondents to prove their title. There was no basis for the consolidation authorities to hold that entry of the name of Ram Surat was made by making forgery. Long standing entry could not be deleted without any evidence. In any case, Ram Surat and after his death his widow and thereafter the petitioner have been in possession of the land in dispute and their names cannot be deleted. Orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. The original records of the consolidation authorities, which were also summoned, were examined. Orders of consolidation authorities are illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. The original records of the consolidation authorities, which were also summoned, were examined. So far as the arguments that the cases were already decided by Consolidation Officer by order dated 20.12.1991 and subsequent order dated 31.1.2011 is without jurisdiction; the recall application filed by Smt. Parwati was directed to be put up along with record on 30.12.1991 and remained undecided, are concerned, a perusal of original records shows that on 18.12.1991, the parties took time for filing compromise and 20.12.1991 was fixed. On 20.12.1991, none of the parties or their Counsel appeared and Consolidation Officer decided all the cases ex parte. Thereafter, Parwati filed an application dated 20.12.1991 for recall of the order, which was allowed on 20.12.1991. On the application "swikrit" has been mentioned and on the order sheet "Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence of the plaintiff" has been written. It appears that subsequently fabrication in the date mentioned below "swikrit" was made and 20' has been fabricated as 21' and in the left margin, "Put up along with record on 30.12.1991" has been mentioned. If the application was not allowed on 20.12.1991, there would have no occasion for mentioning the order on the order-sheet also, which genuineness has not been challenged. In left margin of the application below order "Put up on 30.12.1991 along with record", after the signature of Presiding Officer "CO" in English script was noted while in the previous order dated 20.12.1991 deciding all the cases below the signature of Presiding Officer "Cha Aa" in Hindi script was noted and same signature was below "swikrit". Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly held that the cases were restored on 20.12.1991. Although, the application of the petitioner dated 17.7.2010 remained undecided by Consolidation Officer but in view of the findings recorded by Settlement Officer Consolidation, it stands decided. After restoring the case, Smt. Amarawati was appearing before Consolidation Officer since 12.3.1992 regularly. Had the cases been not restored nor any fresh notice was issued to her, there was no occasion for her for appearing on 12.3.1992. 7. After restoring the case, Smt. Amarawati was appearing before Consolidation Officer since 12.3.1992 regularly. Had the cases been not restored nor any fresh notice was issued to her, there was no occasion for her for appearing on 12.3.1992. 7. So far as the arguments that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing by Consolidation Officer is concerned, as noted above, on 20.12.1991, the case was restored and 30.12.1991 was fixed for evidence. Amarawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. On 24.12.2002, statement of Parwati was recorded and on 5.5.2003, statement of her witness, Hanuman was recorded. In the meantime Parwati filed her documentary evidence time to time. On 26.10.2004, Amarawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. On 25.9.2006, order dated 13.12.1991 passed in Case Nos. 1333 and 1334 were recalled and these cases were also consolidated with Case No. 124 and 4.11.2006 was fixed for framing issues. Thereafter, Amarawati absented from the Court of Consolidation Officer, who framed issues on 15.10.2007, ex-parte. Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07 filed by Amarawati was dismissed on 26.7.2007. Revision No. 43/73 of 2007-08 filed by Amarawati against aforesaid order was dismissed in default on 4.3.2008. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer again issued notices to Amarawati and others on 26.4.2008. In spite of service, Amarawati did not appear. On 8.12.2008, Counsel for Parwati stated that evidence of Parwati had already been recorded and that may be treated evidence on her behalf. Then Consolidation Officer fixed a date for arguments. No reason has been given by the petitioner for not adducing evidence during such a long time. On 12.7.2010, she filed an application for recall of the orders 15.10.2007 and 10.5.2010, in which she had stated that due to illness she could not appear on the date fixed but nothing has been shown that when she fell ill and when she was cured. If she was continuously ill from 15.10.2007 to 10.5.2010, then she was required to file Medical Certificate of such a long period but nothing has been filed. 8. If she was continuously ill from 15.10.2007 to 10.5.2010, then she was required to file Medical Certificate of such a long period but nothing has been filed. 8. So far as the arguments that name Ram Surat (predecessor of the petitioner) was recorded over the land in dispute by order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955 in khatauni 1363-F-1365-F; in basic consolidation year, name of Smt. Gangi widow of Ram Surat was recorded over it and burden was upon the respondents to prove their title and there was no basis for the consolidation authorities to hold that entry of the name of Ram Surat was made by making forgery or long standing entry could not be deleted, are concerned, Consolidation Officer held that name of Mewa was recorded in 1360-F and 1363-F. Tahsildar can mutate the name of any person in cases of transfer or succession. The petitioner could not prove that land in dispute was transferred by Mewa to Ram Surat nor that Ram Surat was the heir of Mewa as such, amal daramad made in khatauni 1363-F-1365-F is forgery and forged entry cannot confer any title. 9. Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Pakhrul Hassan, 1976 RD 237 (SC) held that 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 or 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. This judgment has been followed in Wali Mohd. v. Ram Surat 1989 RD 403 (SC) Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.),2 2002 (93) RD 278 (SC) it has been held that the entry in the revenue record must have a legal basis. Further there was no adjudication of dispute as regards continuance of the wrong entry. v. Ram Surat 1989 RD 403 (SC) Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.),2 2002 (93) RD 278 (SC) it has been held that the entry in the revenue record must have a legal basis. Further there was no adjudication of dispute as regards continuance of the wrong entry. The appellant could not have claimed any title over the land in dispute merely on the basis of wrong entry which continued in its favour through negligence or failure of the Revenue Officer or the Consolidation Officer to correct the record, in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue which had attained finality. In the consolidation proceedings, the Collector is also the District Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and is authorized to correct any wrong entry continued in the consolidation record in that capacity in the exercise of power under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 10. The Counsel for the respondents produced a questionnaire to the effect that no such case was registered before Tahsildar in the year 1955 nor any order was passed on 19.4.1955. He submitted that the entry in khatauni 1363-F-1365-F was merely a forgery without there being any order of any competent authority. Ram Surat had no concern with Mewa nor the petitioner could adduce any evidence to justify for recording the name of Ram Surat over the land of Mewa. In such circumstances, the findings concurrently recorded by all the consolidation authorities that by making forgery, name of Ram Surat was entered is not liable to be interfered by this Court. However, in case this questionnaire is taken into account then this Court will be required to give opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner. Although, the consolidation authorities have rightly held that Tahsildar has right to make changes in the khatauni in the cases of transfer and succession only. However, after coming into force of Supplementary Land Reforms Act, 1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954), Correction of Land Records Drive (CLRD) scheme was initiated by State Government, in which Tahsildars were given power to correct the entries in the revenue records. The consolidation authorities had not examined as to whether entry was made in Correction of Land Records Drive (CLRD) scheme. The consolidation authorities had not examined as to whether entry was made in Correction of Land Records Drive (CLRD) scheme. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to remand the case to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who will give opportunity of evidence to both the parties and record a fresh findings as to whether entry made in khatauni 1363-F-1365 F was genuine or forged. 11. The arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that Nanki was not daughter of Mewa nor any evidence has been adduced to prove this fact is not entertained as it has been proved that Parwati is daughter of Mewa and Parwati admits Nanki to be daughter of Mewa against her own interest, in case, she succeeds. In case, the petitioner succeeds then both of them will be ousted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2014 passed in Revision Nos. 33/33/40/83 of 2013-14 (Amarawati v. Parwati and others) is set aside. The matter is remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who shall give opportunity of evidence to both the parties and record fresh findings as to whether entry made in khatauni 1363-F-1365-F was genuine or forged. Both the contesting parries are appearing before this Court and they will appear before Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10.2.2015, who shall fix a date with the consent of the parties for hearing, giving reasonable time to the parties to adduce their evidence and decide the aforesaid issue afresh and in the light of his findings on the aforesaid issue, decide the revision finally.