JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Ramakant Tiwari, for the petitioners and Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, for the contesting respondents-5 to 9 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents). 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.10.2014, allowing the revisions of the respondents and setting aside orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.2010 and 02.01.2013, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. Dispute between the parties is in respect of plots 323 (area 0.142 hectare) and 405 (area 0.898 hectare), which were recorded in basic consolidation year khatas 54 and 65 of village Rattipur, pargana Saremu, district Jaunpur. In basic consolidation year khata 54 was recorded in the names Tilakdhari alias Triloki, Baliraj, Mahabal, Baliram, Vikrama and Karkhali and khata 65 was recorded in the names of Dinesh Chandra, Parmanand, Vipin Kumar, Vivek Kumar. The petitioners filed objections (registered as Case Nos. 1014 to 1018) under Section 9-A of the Act, for recording their names as co-sharers of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by the petitioners that new plot 323 (area 0.142 hectare) was carved out from old plot 473 (area 0.35 acre) and new plot 405 (area 0.898 hectare) was carved out from old plots 483 (area 0.38 acre) and 484 (area 1.84 acre). The land in dispute was joint property of Ram Narain and Shiv Narain sons of Shiv Bachan, having equal share in it. Share of Shiv Narain was inherited by his three grand sons Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal sons of Shivnandan alias Babban, who executed a sale deed dated 31.07.1951 in favour of Triloki, Sita Ram and Nanhu (now represented by the respondents). Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal had only 1/2 share as such sale deed dated 31.07.1951 was valid for only 1/2 share in it. The petitioners are descendants of Ram Narain and are owner of remaining 1/2 share. However, without any order of competent authority their names were deleted from the land in dispute. 4. Tilakdhari and others (the respondents) contested the objection and filed their written statement raising plea that Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal were actual owners of plots 473 (area 0.35 acre), 483 (area 0.38 acre) and 484 (area 1.84 acre). However, without any order of competent authority their names were deleted from the land in dispute. 4. Tilakdhari and others (the respondents) contested the objection and filed their written statement raising plea that Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal were actual owners of plots 473 (area 0.35 acre), 483 (area 0.38 acre) and 484 (area 1.84 acre). They executed a registered mortgage deed dated 17.08.1925 of the land in dispute in favour of Kuber and Ganesh sons of Gurudayal and Sitaram son of Sumer and handed over possession of the land in dispute. They deposited requisite amount of land revenue and obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed a sale deed dated 31.07.1951, in their favour as such they became owner of it. In previous consolidation operation in the village, the petitioners did not file any objection, claiming any right over the land in dispute and chaks were carved out in the names of the respondents. They were through out in possession of the land in dispute from the date of mortgage and right of the petitioners, if any, has barred under Section 49 of the Act. Several plea of legal bar of right of the petitioners have also been raised. 5. The Consolidation Officer, dated 27.12.2010, decided three issues as preliminary issues and held that the objection was not barred under Section 49 of the Act, Section 11 C.P.C. and the Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Thereafter the parties were permitted to adduce their evidence. The Consolidation Officer, by dated 02.01.2013 held that from the evidence on record, it was proved that land in dispute was joint holdings of ancestor of the petitioners and Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal. On deposit of requisite amount of land revenue, bhumidhari certificate was issued on 31.07.1951, which would be in favour of all the co-sharers. Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal executed a sale deed dated 31.07.1951, in favour of the respondents, which would be valid for their 1/2 share only. The names of the predecessors of the petitioners have been wrongly deleted on the basis of this sale deed. On these findings, he allowed the objections of the petitioners and directed to record the names of the petitioners as co-sharers of 1/2 share of the land in dispute. 6. The respondents filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 3512 of 2013-14 and 3517 of 2013-14) from the aforesaid orders. On these findings, he allowed the objections of the petitioners and directed to record the names of the petitioners as co-sharers of 1/2 share of the land in dispute. 6. The respondents filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 3512 of 2013-14 and 3517 of 2013-14) from the aforesaid orders. Both the revisions were consolidation and decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 31.10.2014, held that in view of Division Bench judgment of High Court in Faujdar Vs. DDC and others, 2006 (100) RD 462 (DB), the revision against the orders of Consolidation Officer is maintainable. From the evidence on record, it is proved that total area of 12.01 acre was recorded as 'occupancy tenancy' of both the branches of Shiv Nandan and Shiv Gulam, which were partitioned between them and recorded in their names. There is no dispute in respect of other plots between them. The dispute was raised only in respect of plots 473 (area 0.35 acre), 483 (area 0.38 acre) and 484 (area 1.84 acre), which were sold by Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal to the respondents. Initially the disputed land were mortgaged in favour of Sukkhu Kahar on 29.03.1905 for a period of 20 years. Thereafter it were mortgaged on 30.06.1925 to the respondents, which shows that the land in dispute was in exclusive possession of the branch of Shiv Nandan, since 1905. In previous consolidation operation, names of the respondents were recorded in CH Form-11. On its basis, it came to be recorded in their names in CH Form-45. The petitioners have never claimed their right over the land in dispute since 1905. Their objection is time barred. Unbroken identity of the joint holdings since 1309 F has not been proved. Private partition between the parties since before 1905 has been proved. In previous consolidation, the respondents did not file any objection claiming their right over the land in dispute as such their right, if any, is barred under Section 49 of the Act. On these findings, he allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.2010 and 02.01.2013 and dismissed the objection of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. On these findings, he allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 27.12.2010 and 02.01.2013 and dismissed the objection of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that land in dispute was jointly recorded in the names of Shiv Nandan son of Shiv Narain and Shiv Gulam son of Ram Narain as their 'occupancy tenancy' in Settlement Khatauni of the year 1881. In 1309 F, it came to be recorded jointly in the names of Ram Gulam son of Ram Narain and Gajraj son of Shiv Gulam, having 1/2 share and Gaya and Gopal sons of Shiv Nandan and Smt. Rajwanti widow of Gajadhar, having remaining 1/2 share. In khatauni 1356 F and 1359 F, the names of Gajraj son of Shiv Gulam and Ram Anugrah son of Gopal were recorded over it along with other plots. After date of vesting it was recorded in the names of Shiv Murat, Ram Surat and Shyam Surat sons of Gajraj and Ram Anugrah son of Gopal along with other plots. In previous consolidation, by committing forgery, names of the predecessor of the petitioners were deleted and the names of the respondents were recorded without any order of competent authority. The petitioners were co-owners of the land in dispute as such possession of one co-owner is possession of all. The respondents derive their title on the basis of sale deed dated 31.07.1951, allegedly executed by Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal, who had 1/2 share only. As such on the basis of sale deed dated 31.07.1951, only 1/2 share was transferred to the petitioners. Supreme Court in Ramdas Vs. Sitabai, AIR 2009 SC 2735 , held that a person cannot transfer a better title than what he had. This Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2010 (5) ADJ 308 held that in cases of manipulation or fraudulent revenue entries, bar of Section 49 of the Act is not attracted. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2010 (5) ADJ 308 held that in cases of manipulation or fraudulent revenue entries, bar of Section 49 of the Act is not attracted. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. A perusal of copy of khatauni Jamabandi of 1289 F, corresponding to the year 1881 (Annexure-1) to writ petition shows that although names of Shivnandan and Shiv Gulam were jointly recorded in khata-30 but various plots of this khata were recorded in their separate possession. Plots 473, 483 and 484 (disputed plots) were recorded in exclusive possession of Shivnandan (father of Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal), who initially mortgaged it, in favour of Sukkhu Kahar on 29.03.1905 for a period of 20 years. Thereafter he mortgaged it to the respondents, through registered mortgage deed dated 30.06.1925. Thereafter Gaya, Gajadhar and Gopal deposited requisite amount of land revenue and obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed a registered sale deed dated 31.07.1951 in favour of the respondents. The names of the respondents were mutated on the basis of the sale deed by the order of Naib Tahsildar, without any objection of the petitioners. 9. On the basis of these evidence, Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a findings that partition of joint family property between Shivnandan and Ram Narain had taken place, long before 1309 F. The disputed land fell in the share of Shivnandan, who exclusively mortgaged it on 29.03.1905 and thereafter on 30.06.1925. Later on sold it on 31.07.1951 to the respondents without any objection of the predecessors of the petitioners, which shows that the land in dispute was in exclusive possession of the branch of Shiv Nandan, since long before 1905, as in family partition of joint holdings, it fell in their share. Findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 10. So far as entry in 1356 F and 1359 khatauni, relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries (P) Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 382 and Union of India Vs. Findings recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 10. So far as entry in 1356 F and 1359 khatauni, relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries (P) Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 382 and Union of India Vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society, AIR 2014 SC 937 held that it is trite that entry in the revenue record alone may not be sufficient as conclusive proof of title nor can be relied upon for proof of establishing the title as such. Although there is presumption regarding correctness of the settlement year khatauni but in view of the fact that from 1289 F, the land in dispute was separately in possession of Shivnandan and partition of joint family property between Shivnandan and Ram Narain had taken place, khataunies of 1356 F and 1359 F were not correctly prepared. As such it has been rightly disbelieved by Deputy Director of Consolidation. 11. Supreme Court in Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan, AIR 1976 SC 1485 , 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 Mohhd. Vs. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 . Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.), (2002) 9 SCC 509 , 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. Vs. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 . Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. & Rev.), (2002) 9 SCC 509 , 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, 1953. 12. Deputy Director of Consolidation further found that in previous consolidation operation, names of the respondents were recorded in CH Form-11. On its basis, it came to be recorded in their names in CH Form-45. The petitioners have never claimed their right over the land in dispute since 1905. Unbroken identity of the joint holdings since 1289 F has not been proved. Except these three plots, the petitioners did not claim remaining property recorded in the branch of Shivnandan. Thus claim of the petitioners was found to be time barred as well as barred under Section 49 of the Act. This case is not a case of fraudulent entry and case law relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners has no application. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed.