JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioners and Sri O.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.D. Shukla, for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Tahsildar dated 27.01.2005, Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.03.2005 and Commissioner dated 05.02.2010 passed in mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to plots 1654 (area 0.51 acre), 1655 (area 0.37 acre), 1658 (area 0.53 acre) and 1659 (area 0.31 acre) of village Singha Parasi, pargana and district Bahraich. Zia-uddin and others (respondents-10 to 21) filed separate applications (registered as Case Nos. 284, 289/665-A, 290, 291, 292, 698, 706, 707, 708, 614, 615, and 699) (case No. 698 was leading case) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutating their names, on the basis of 12 separate registered sale deeds in their favour, executed by Radhey Shyam and others (respondents-4 to 9), who were recorded tenure holders, over the land in dispute. After proclamation, the petitioners filed their objection, stating therein that the land in dispute was acquired by joint family of Sant Ram, Sarju Prasad, Prabhu Prasad and Bindeshwari Prasad, in which they had 1/4 share each. Thereafter, family partition took place on 01.02.1948 and memorandum of family settlement was reduced in writing on 20.07.1952. Prabhu Prasad filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 320/123) under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, in which preliminary decree was passed on 02.07.1969 on the basis of compromise. As all co-sharers were in separate possession in pursuance of family settlement as such no further action was taken. Bindeshwari Prasad died in 1988. At that time, the petitioners were minors. Six months prior, when the transferees began to interfere in possession of the petitioners then on inquiry it was found that by committing forgery names of Smt. Kailasha Devi wife of Sant Ram, Om Prakash and Radhey Shyam sons of Sant Ram were mutated by order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 25.04.1970. Amaldaramad of this order was made in khatauni 1359 F although in khatauni 1368 F to 1381 F, name of Sant Ram was still recorded and they were in possession of it over their share. Amaldaramad of this order was made in khatauni 1359 F although in khatauni 1368 F to 1381 F, name of Sant Ram was still recorded and they were in possession of it over their share. As such sale deeds executed by respondents-4 to 9 were fabricated documents and on its basis names of respondents-10 to 21 cannot be mutated. 4. The petitioners took several adjournments but could not adduce any evidence. Later on they defaulted. Tahsildar, by order dated 27.01.2005 allowed the mutation applications and directed for recording the names of transferees over the land in dispute on the basis of registered sale deeds, executed by recorded tenure holders, in their favour. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 43/) from aforesaid order. Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 14.03.2005, dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 73) against the aforesaid order. In revision, the petitioners also filed various documents. The revision was heard by Commissioner, who by order dated 05.02.2010 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had applied for certified copies of various documents, which were delayed, by copying section. Tahsildar without granting reasonable time, decided mutation cases in haste. Various documents were filed before Commissioner but the revision was dismissed without considering the additional evidence filed before him. Sub-Divisional Officer, in a suit for declaration and partition passed preliminary decree dated 02.07.1969, in which it was held that Sant Ram had only 1/4 share in the land in dispute. Sale deeds of entire area of the land in dispute were not valid nor on its basis the names of transferees can be mutation, ignoring decree dated 02.07.1969. The orders of Revenue Courts are illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. The respondents in Counter Affidavit have stated that land in dispute was sirdari holding to Sant Ram and recorded as such in his name in revenue records along with other plots. Sant Ram obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed registered gift deed dated 27.05.1969 in favour of Smt. Kailasha Devi, Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash, whose names were mutated in revenue records. After death of Smt. Kailasha Devi and Om Prakash, their interest was inherited by respondents-4 to 9. Sant Ram obtained bhumidhari certificate and executed registered gift deed dated 27.05.1969 in favour of Smt. Kailasha Devi, Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash, whose names were mutated in revenue records. After death of Smt. Kailasha Devi and Om Prakash, their interest was inherited by respondents-4 to 9. Now on the basis of sale deeds executed by respondents-4 to 9, the names of respondents 10 to 21 were directed to be mutated in the revenue record. Alleged decree dated 02.07.1969 passed in Suit No. 320/123, under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is nothing but a forged and fabricated paper. The petitioners themselves filed Regular Suit No. 132 of 1974 on 19.07.1974, in which there is no whisper about the alleged decree dated 02.07.1969 passed in Suit No. 320/123, under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Sarju Prasad, brother of Sant Ram filed another suit on 20.09.1978 i.e. Suit No. 569/281/226/34/23/289/256/12, under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, in which also there is no mentioned of alleged decree dated 02.07.1969 passed in Suit No. 320/123, under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the basis of forged and fabricated papers, the petitioners are harassing the respondents. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the plaint of Regular Suit No. 132 of 1974 was filed by Sarju Prasad for partition of non-agricultural property in Civil Court and Suit No. 569/281/226/34/23/289/256/12, under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by Sarju Prasad on 20.09.1978, there was no about the decree dated 02.07.1969, family settlement dated 01.02.1948 or memorandum of family settlement dated 20.07.1952. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is a forged and fabricated document. In as much as it is alleged to be khatauni of 1359 F but on top of it, it has been mentioned that "in those area where Zamindari Abolition Act, was enforced". U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.1952 i.e. 1360 F. Further prior to enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, there was no tenure holder like sirdar. This khatauni is in respect of sirdari holdings. On the basis of forged papers, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force w.e.f. 01.07.1952 i.e. 1360 F. Further prior to enforcement of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, there was no tenure holder like sirdar. This khatauni is in respect of sirdari holdings. On the basis of forged papers, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In view of Section 40-A of the Act, the petitioners have remedy to file a suit to establish their title, which had already been filed by them. The fact remains that land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of Sant Ram and thereafter on the basis of gift deed, the names of donees were mutated. As such there is no illegality in recording the names of transferees of recorded tenure holders. The counsel for the respondents also relied upon judgment of this Court in Madhav Pandey vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1311 , in which it has been held that writ petition challenging mutation order is not maintainable. 8. So far as decree dated 2.7.1969, passed in Suit No. 320/123 is concerned, the decree was not executed within the period as prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioner never tried to get his name recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid decree, thus, no right can be conferred on the basis of the aforesaid decree. Otherwise also, its genuineness has been seriously doubted, as Sant Ram himself did not disclose this decree in the suit filed by him. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.