JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Wasim Alam, for the petitioners and Sri Madhur Prakash, for respondents and Sri Shamim Ahmad for caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute relates to double entries of the area of plot 654 of village Buzurga, pargana Sadiabad, district Ghazipur. Total area of various subplots of plot 654 were recorded as 63-13-4 bigha, in previous settlement records of the year 1880-F, 1356-F. In basic consolidation records, various sub-plots of plot 654 were recorded in khatas 7, 10, 40, 48, 61, 68, 69, 160, 164, 176, 250, 265, 266, 266-Aa and 266-Ba, in the names of different person. During field to field partial, total area of sub-plots of plot 654 was found as 63-13-4 bigha on the spot but while preparing CH Form-4, it was noticed by the subordinate consolidation authorities that total area of various sub-plots of plot 654, which were recorded in aforementioned basic consolidation year khatas, became 80-3-10 bigha. Thus an excess area of 16-10-6 bigha of plot 654 was noticed. Therefore, dispute was referred to Consolidation Officer to decide as to in which khata, forged/double entry of sub-plots of plot 654 were recorded, so that area of plot 654 be corrected. The present writ petition is confined to entry of area of subplot of plot 654 as it was recorded in basic consolidation year khata 164, in the names of predecessors of the contesting respondents and khata 250 in the names of predecessors of the petitioners. For remaining khata, the matter is still pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation, it will be open to him to decide, the matter on merit. 3. The Consolidation Officer, after registering the case, issued notices to all the tenure holders of the aforementioned khatas. They appeared before Consolidation Officer and adduced their evidence to prove that sub-plots of plot 654 was correctly recorded, in their khatas. The Consolidation Officer also summoned original khatauni from record room of the year 1356-F, 1359-F and 1362 F. On the basis of entries made, in khatauni 1356-F, 1359-F and 1362-F, the Consolidator/Consolidation Officer prepared a chart of the various khatas in which sub-plots of plot 654 were recorded. The Consolidation Officer also summoned original khatauni from record room of the year 1356-F, 1359-F and 1362 F. On the basis of entries made, in khatauni 1356-F, 1359-F and 1362-F, the Consolidator/Consolidation Officer prepared a chart of the various khatas in which sub-plots of plot 654 were recorded. Total area of various sub-plots of plot 654 as recorded in last settlement record of 1359-F came to about 72 bigha. The Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties, by order dated 6.1.1977 found that entry of basic consolidation year khata 160 (consisting plot 654/2 area 2-9-12 bigha), khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha), khata 266 (consisting plot 654/3 area 3-16-14 bigha) and khata 344 (consisting plot 654/4 area 0-13-0 bigha) (total area 12-15-16 bigha) were forged entry. Remaining excess area of plot 654 was directed to be reduced proportionately from remaining khatas. 4. Various appeals were filed from the aforesaid order. Ram Nagina son of Baldeo (khata 176), who had not contested the matter before Consolidation Officer, also filed an appeal for recording his name over an area of 5-0-0 bigha of plot 654 in his name. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 05.06.1992 allowed the appeal of Ram Nagina and dismissed the other appeals due to which an area of 5-0-0 bigha of plot 654 was again enhanced than its total area as determined by Consolidation Officer. Riyaz Ahmad and others (now represented by respondents-4 to 12), Doodh Nath, Surya Nath and Ka-haiya filed their separate revisions against the aforesaid orders. All the four revisions were consolidated by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 21.1.1994 held that by the order of Consolidation Officer total area of various sub-plots of plot 654 had come to 61-13-5 bigha. Settlement Officer Consolidation further enhanced its area to 5-0-0 bigha due to which its total area has become 66-13-5 bigha although settlement area of 63-13-4 bigha. As such he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer 6.1.1977 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.6.1992 and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute as to which khata is forged afresh. 5. After remand, a fresh objection was filed by one Girja in 2004. As such he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer 6.1.1977 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.6.1992 and remanded the case to Consolidation Officer to decide the dispute as to which khata is forged afresh. 5. After remand, a fresh objection was filed by one Girja in 2004. Consolidation Officer, dated 9.6.2006, held that objection of Girja filed in the year 2004, although the village was notified under section 9 of the Act, in 1972 as such his objection was not maintainable. Original khatauni of 1356-F was in ruinous condition. In khatauni 1359-F, plot number and its area were torn at various places and in certified copies of khatauni 1359-F note has been made in this respect as such no reliance on these khatauni can be placed. Entries of khatauni 1359-F, being last settlement record, has to be accepted. As area of various sub-plots of plot 654 was still more than its settlement area as such it has to be proportionately reduced from all the khatas. On these findings he by order dated 9.6.2006 directed for reducing excess area of plot 654 proportionately from all the khatas. 6. Fourteen Appeals (including the appeals of the petitioners and contesting respondents) were filed from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.6.2006. All the appeals were consolidated and heard together by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 25.5.2011 held that Deputy Director of Consolidation, in his remand order dated 21.1.1994 directed Consolidation Officer to decide as to which khata correctly contained sub-plots of plot 654 and entry in which khata was double/forged. But Consolidation Officer failed to follow the direction in the remand order and again directed for reducing proportionate area from all the khatas, in order to maintain its settlement area of 63-13-4 bigha. As such remand order was not complied with. On these findings, he allowed the appeals and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.6.2006 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer for fresh decision according to the direction contained in the remand order dated 21.4.1994. 7. After remand, Consolidation Officer by order dated 15.9.2011 held that entry of basic consolidation year khata 160 (consisting plot 654/2 area 2-9-12 bigha), khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha), khata 266 (consisting plot 654/3 area 3-16-14 bigha) and khata 344 (consisting plot 654/4 area 0-13-0 bigha) (total area 12-15-16 bigha) were double/forged entry. 7. After remand, Consolidation Officer by order dated 15.9.2011 held that entry of basic consolidation year khata 160 (consisting plot 654/2 area 2-9-12 bigha), khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha), khata 266 (consisting plot 654/3 area 3-16-14 bigha) and khata 344 (consisting plot 654/4 area 0-13-0 bigha) (total area 12-15-16 bigha) were double/forged entry. Remaining excess area of plot 654 has been reduced proportionately from remaining khatas. Some tenure holder has filed appeal from this order, which is pending before Settlement Officer Consolidation. 8. Razi Ahmad and others (contesting respondents) filed a revision against the order Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.5.2011, on 2.6.2011. As interim order in the revision was not granted as such during pendency of the revision, fresh order has been passed by Consolidation Officer dated 15.9.2011, in pursuance of remand order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Land Revenue), who by order dated 28.11.2014 held that entire evidence of the parties were on the record, Settlement Officer Consolidation, in stead on remanding the case, should have decided the appeal on merit finally as held by this Court in Girdhari v. DDC and others 2005 (98) RD 583 and Smt. Kishn Kumari v. DDC and others 2008 (104) RD 463 . The respondents have filed khatauni of the year 1880, khasra Nos. 1882, 1883 and 1887, in which an area of 9-14-10 bigha of plot 654 of the mohal Wazid Ali was recorded in the name of predecessor of the respondents. In khatauni 1356-F and 1359-F, plot 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha) of mohal Wazid Ali was recorded in the name of Nesar (predecessor of the respondents) as such basic consolidation year khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha) cannot be said to be forged. In khatauni 1359-F an area of 5-11-8 bigha of plot 654/9 and 5-16-18 bigha of plot 654/9 belonging to mohal Wazid Ali came to be recorded in the names of the predecessors of the petitioners although total area of plot 654 of the mohal Wazid Ali was 9-14-10 bigha. As such area in excess of total area of the mohal Wazid Ali, in the names of the petitioners was double/forged and liable to be deleted from khata 250 of the petitioners. As such area in excess of total area of the mohal Wazid Ali, in the names of the petitioners was double/forged and liable to be deleted from khata 250 of the petitioners. On these findings, the revision was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation, so far as it was in respect of khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha) and khata 250 (consisting plot 654/9 area 5-16-18 bigha) has been set aside and khata 164 was held as genuine and khata 250 was held as forged. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 9. The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 25.5.2011, found that by remand order dated 21.1.1994, Deputy Director of Consolidation, had directed Consolidation Officer to decide as to which khata correctly contains sub-plots of plot 654 and entry in which khata was double/forged. But Consolidation Officer has failed to follow the direction in the remand order and again directed for reducing excess area proportionately from all the khatas, in order to maintain its settlement area. As such Settlement Officer Consolidation remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer again. After remand, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 15.9.2011, held that entry of khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha) was forged and khata 250 (consisting plot 654/9 area 5-16-18 bigha) was genuine. This order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.9.2011 has not been challenged by the respondents. The revision filed against remand order dated 25.5.2011, has become infructuous as in compliance of remand order, fresh order has been passed. Maroor Hasan alias Ahmad Hasan was impleaded as opposite party in the revision. He died during pendency of the revision but his heirs were not substituted. Nayyar Kamal and Rashid Kamal sons of Kalamuddin, who are also adversely affected with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation were not impleaded as opposite parties in the revision as such judgment is against dead person as well as without impleading necessary parties and is liable to be set aside. The respondents produced forged extract of khatauni 1359-F. From the evidence adduced by Nagina in the Appellate Court, it was proved that in khatauni 1359-F, the respondents by making interpolation and overwriting made plot 652 as 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha). The respondents produced forged extract of khatauni 1359-F. From the evidence adduced by Nagina in the Appellate Court, it was proved that in khatauni 1359-F, the respondents by making interpolation and overwriting made plot 652 as 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha). In the original khatauni, in khata 146 of Nesar, plot number and its area was torn as noticed by the Consolidation Officer in the memorandum prepared by him on the basis original khatauni. During partial possession of the respondents were not found on any sub-plot of plot 654 nor any entry was made in this respect in their names in CH Form-2-Ka. Spot inspection was made by Consolidation Officer on 2.5.1996, in which possession of the petitioners over the land of khata 250 was found on the spot. Right of the parties has to be decided on the basis of khatauni 1356 F and 1359-F. Consolidation Officer, again after examining entire evidence on record held that khata 164 in names of the respondents was forged. Deputy Director of consolidation has illegally neither noticed the various evidence on record nor analyzed it and by cryptic order, mechanically accepted the case of the respondents and set aside the findings of fact recorded by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed detail written arguments and argued all the points before Deputy Director of Consolidation but it has not been noticed. The order of Deputy Director of consolidation is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. At the out set, it is noticed that the respondents alone had filed revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation as such the order dated 28.11.2014 is confined to the land of basic consolidation year khata 164 and 250. Therefore, judgment of this Court is also confined to these two khata 164 and 250. Although the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is not happily worded, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners have no case as such further remand to consolidation authorities for fresh decision will not serve any purpose as the matter is pending since 1972 and on the basis of forged/double entry as well as order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.1977, valuation of excess area of 16-10-6 bigha of plot 654 was allotted in the chak of various tenure holders, they are illegally enjoying possession over it by lingering the decision. 11. 11. So far as the arguments that after remand, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 15.9.2011, held that entry of khata 164 (consisting plot 654/10 area 5-16-10 bigha) was forged and khata 250 (consisting plot 654/9 area 5-16-18 bigha) was genuine, This order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.9.2011 has not been challenged by the respondents; The revision filed against remand order dated 25.5.2011, has become infructuous as in compliance of remand order, fresh order has been passed, are concern, entire record was summoned by Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision. Full Bench of this Court in Ramkant Singh v. DDC and others AIR 1975 All 126 (FB), held that once the record was summoned, Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise his suo motu power of revision under section 48 of the Act. As such in spite of fresh order of Consolidation Officer, during pendency of revision, which was filed well within time, the revision has neither become infructuous nor there is inherent lac of jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation in deciding the revision. In view of Explanation-3 to section 48 of the Act and also held by Supreme Court in Sheo Nand v. DDC and others 2000 RD 213 (SC) and Gulzar Singh v. DDC and others 2009 (107) RD 78 (SC), Deputy Director of Consolidation was competent to examine entire evidence of record and decide issue relating to facts in the revision on merit. A Division Bench of this Court in Faujdar v. DDC and others 2006 (100) RD 462 (DB), held that the revision is directly maintainable without filing the appeal. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 15.9.2011, was also before Deputy Director of Consolidation, along with the original record at the time of hearing of the revision as such it stands modified according to the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.11.2014. 12. So far as the arguments that Maroor Hasan alias Ahmad Hasan who was opposite party in the revision has died during pendency of the revision but his heirs were not substituted and Nayyar Kamal and Rashid Kamal sons of Kalamuddin, who are co-sharers were not impleaded, is concerned, the petitioners are joint tenants with these persons. Interest of heir of deceased as well as the persons who were not impleaded had been represented through the petitioners, who have argued the revision and also filed written arguments. Interest of heir of deceased as well as the persons who were not impleaded had been represented through the petitioners, who have argued the revision and also filed written arguments. Full Bench of this Court in Bijai Narain v. State of U.P. 1969 RD 330 (FB), held that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are not applicable to the proceedings before consolidation authorities. Being joint tenants, interest was fully represented by the remaining joint tenants, who were present before Deputy Director of Consolidation and order has been passed after hearing them. In the absence of collusion and fraud, this Court is not inclined to remand the case without examining the merit of the case, as by prolonging decision, unauthorized persons are enjoying illegal possession over the land in dispute. 13. The respondents filed copy of khatauni of the year 1880, khasra Nos. 1882, 1883 and 1887, in which an area of 9-14-10 bigha of plot 654 of the mohal Wazid Ali was recorded in the name of predecessor of the respondents. They also filed copy of khatauni 1356-F, in which the name of Neasr, predecessors of the respondents was recorded over an area of 5-16-10 bigha of plot 654/10. They also filed copy of khatauni 1359 F, in which same entry was also made. However, in original khatauni of 1359-F, plot number and its area was torn from khata of Nesar. Thus from this evidence, it was proved that in 1359-F also there was a khata in the name of Nesar. According to the respondents, sub-plot of plot 654 of mohal Wazid Ali, which was coming in their family since 1880 settlement year was recorded in khatauni 1359-F but portion of/plot number and its area was deliberately torn from the original khatauni in order to justify the forged entry. The petitioners could not give any explanation that how the ancestors of respondents were deprived from the area of plot 654 of mohal Wazid Ali, which was recorded in their name in earliest settlement record of 1880. In the absence of any explanation, khatauni 1356-F and 1359-F filed by the respondents was rightly believed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Plot 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha) of mohal Wazid Ali, which was recorded in the name of Nesar (predecessors of the respondents) continuously recorded up to basic consolidation year khata 164 and it cannot be said to be forged a forged entry. Plot 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha) of mohal Wazid Ali, which was recorded in the name of Nesar (predecessors of the respondents) continuously recorded up to basic consolidation year khata 164 and it cannot be said to be forged a forged entry. Explanation given in the writ petition that by interpolation and overwriting plot 652 was made as 654/10 (area 5-16-10 bigha) does not appears to be correct as plot 654/10 was coming in the name of the predecessors of respondents since 1880 and there is no evidence relating to plot 652. 14. Consolidation Officer, on the basis of original khatauni 1356-F and 1359-F prepared a chart, in which, in 1359-F, khata 14 [consisting plots 654/8 (area 4-16-4 bigha) and 654/9 (area 5-16-4 bigha)] was recorded in the names of Rahamtullah, Masitullah, Sadultullah with period of cultivation of four year, khata 162 [consisting plot 654/9 (area 5-16-2 bigha)] was recorded in the names of Rahamtullah, Masiuddin and khata 185 [consisting plot 654/9 (area 5-16-18 bigha)] was recorded in the names of Rahamtullah, Masiuddin, with period of cultivation of four year, predecessors of the petitioners. Thus same plot 654/9 was recorded in three different khata in the name of Rahamtullah etc. with slight variation of its area. The petitioners could not give any explanation as to how same plot came to be recorded in three khata in the names of same persons. There is absolutely no evidence as in what manner, plot 654/9 was acquired by Rahamtullah. Same plot came to be recorded in the names of the petitioners in basic consolidation year khata 250. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not committed any illegality in holding that entry of plot 654/9 in khata 250 in the names of the petitioners was double/forged and liable to be deleted. 15. The petitioners relied upon some khasra entries. Under section 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, presumption of correctness of settlement year khatauni has to be raised. No presumption of correctness of khasra entry has been attached under the law. Thus in case of contradiction between khatauni and khasra, khatauni will prevail. 15. The petitioners relied upon some khasra entries. Under section 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, presumption of correctness of settlement year khatauni has to be raised. No presumption of correctness of khasra entry has been attached under the law. Thus in case of contradiction between khatauni and khasra, khatauni will prevail. In any case, there is absolutely no explanation as to how same plot 654/9 with some variation of its area came to be recorded in three different khatas in the names of Rahamtullah and others, in khatauni 1359-F as such the petitioners cannot be treated as "recorded occupants" within the meaning of section 20 of the Act, of the same plot in three different khata. It is nothing but double entry and has been rightly directed to be deleted from khata 250 of the petitioners. A Special Bench of this Court in Basudeo v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others1974 RD 188 (SB) and Supreme Court in Ram Harakh v. Hamid Ahmad Khan 1999 (90) RD 284 (SC), held that in order to give right to a "recorded occupant" in 1356-F and 1359-F under section 20 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the entry must be genuine and made according to the provisions of U.P. Land Records Manual. No right on the basis of forged/fabricated entry can be granted. Double entry is also a fabricated/forged entry. 16. So far as spot inspection was made by Consolidation Officer on 2.5.1996, is concerned, by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 6.1.1977, the land of khata 250 was held to genuine and on its basis, valuation was allotted in the chak of the petitioners. Thus this inspection report cannot be treated as proof of possession. Similarly entry made in CH Form-2Ka is subject to final decision in title proceeding. In view of aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. It is again clarified that this judgment is confined to khata 164 and 250 only as investigation in respect of remaining excess area of plot 654 is still has to be adjudicated by Settlement Officer Consolidation.