JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, for the petitioner and Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, for respondent-4. 2. 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 14.7.2015, passed in title proceeding under Section 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. 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, in the name of Smt. Gangi, widow of Ram Surat. During partal following disputes amongst other were raised and noted in CH Form-4 : (i) Smt. Parwati (respondent-4) and Smt. Nanki filed an objection on 21.8.1991 under Section 9 (2) of the Act, for recording their names over the land in dispute as the heirs of Mewa (being his daughters) and deleting the name of Smt. Gangi and their transferees from khata in dispute. Smt. Nanki died in January 1996 and in her place Banarasi was substituted on 12.3.1996. Now Smt. Parwati is representing him. (ii) Shiv Shankar (respondent-7) claimed for recording his name over plots 160 (area 1-0-0 bigha) and 161 (area 0-11-0 bigha) on the basis of sale-deed executed by Ram Surat in his favour. (iii) Smt. Amrawati (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) Smt. Amrawati (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) Zahruddin (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. Amrawati filed an objection on 20.8.1991, 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 all the plots of the khata in dispute. During pendency of the cases, before Consolidation Officer, Smt. Gangi died in August 1998 and in her place, Amrawati was substituted as her legal representative by order dated 11.8.1999. Zahruddin (respondent-6) and Shiv Shankar (respondent-7) also filed their separate objections under Section 9 (2) of the Act. 4. All the cases were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer. Consolidation Officer by order dated 30.10.1991 issued notices to the parties, 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 (respondent-4) filed an application dated 20.12.1991 for recall of the order, which was allowed on 20.12.1991. On the application the word “swikrit” has been written. In the order sheet “Restoration application filed by Parwati is allowed. Put up on 30.12.1991 for evidence of the plaintiff” has been written. Amrawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amrawati 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, Amrawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. Amrawati put appearance before Consolidation Officer 12.3.1992. From the order sheet of Consolidation Officer, it appears that Amrawati 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, Amrawati was given last opportunity to adduce her evidence. Order dated 13.12.1991 passed in Case Nos. 1333 and 1334 were recalled by order dated 25.9.2006 and these cases were also consolidated with Case No. 124 and 4.11.2006 was fixed for framing issues. 5. Amrawati challenged the order dated 25.9.2006 in Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07. As such, she absented before Consolidation Officer, although in appeal, further proceeding before Consolidation Officer was not stayed. Appeal No. 195 of 2006-07 was dismissed on 26.7.2007. Consolidation Officer framed issues on 15.10.2007, ex parte. Revision No. 43/73 of 2007-08 filed by Amrawati against the aforesaid order was dismissed in default on 4.3.2008. Thereafter, Consolidation Officer again issued notices to Amrawati and others on 26.4.2008. In spite of service, Amrawati did not appear before Consolidation Officer. On 8.12.2008, the counsel for Parwati stated that evidence of Parwati had already been recorded and it may be treated evidence on her behalf. 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, Amrawati filed an application that in the application dated 20.12.1991, by fabricating word “swikrit” has been written in the date 21.12.1991 and she be granted time to file objection in the application dated 20.12.1991 and 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 record of Consolidation Officer, there was 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 deleted from the land in dispute and names of Parwati and Banarasi were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa. Objections of the transferees of Ram Surat were also dismissed. 6. As such name of Ram Surat was directed to be deleted from the land in dispute and names of Parwati and Banarasi were directed to be recorded as heirs of Mewa. Objections of the transferees of Ram Surat were also dismissed. 6. Amrawati 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 21.12.1991 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 amaldaramad 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 as to how name of Ram Surat was recorded over the land of Mewa. Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the name of Mewa and record the name of Ram Surat. It has been proved from the evidence on record by Parwati that Parwati and Nanki were daughters and heirs of Mewa. On these findings the appeals were dismissed. Amrawati 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 Courts below and dismissed the revisions. 7. Amrawati filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-B No. 62174 of 2014). In the writ petition, various grounds including that order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.1991 was never recalled as such Consolidation Officer had no jurisdiction to pass fresh order on 31.1.2011 were raised. Due to serious factual controversy and as desired by counsel for both the parties, original records of the consolidation authorities relating to the cases were summoned. From original records facts narrated above were verified. It was found that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled on 21.12.1991. On the application word “swikrit” has been written but in order sheet detail order was mentioned. From original records facts narrated above were verified. It was found that order dated 20.12.1991 was recalled on 21.12.1991. On the application word “swikrit” has been written but in order sheet detail order was mentioned. Thereafter, after hearing the parties, writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 21.1.2015 and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.7.2014 was set aside and the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was directed to record a finding in respect of genuineness of the order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955, after giving fresh opportunity of evidence to the parties. Thereafter, Zahruddin also filed a highly belated writ petition i.e. Writ-B No. 5954 of 2015, against the orders of consolidation authorities. As the matter had been remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation as such this writ petition was allowed by order dated 3.2.2015 and Zaharuddin was also given liberty to appear before Deputy Director of Consolidation, who was directed to consider his case also while deciding revisions. 8. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation again heard the revisions and by order dated 14.7.2015 held that Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to delete the name of Mewa from the land in dispute and record the name of Ram Surat over it. A suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed by Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati Devi for declaring them as owners of the land in dispute and deleting the names of Mewa and his transferees on 2.6.1988, which was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter objections were filed before Assistant Consolidation Officer on 21.8.1991. On these findings, he dismissed the revisions of the petitioner and Zahruddin again. Zahruddin filed Writ B No. 52946 of 2015, against aforesaid order, which was dismissed on merit by order dated 16.9.2015. Now, after a long delay, this writ petition has been filed by Amrawati. 9. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark column of khasra 1359 F as he was in cultivatory possession over the disputed land. Due to mistake, his name was not recorded in khatauni of subsequent year. Ram Surat filed an application (registered as Case No. 8/887) before Tahsildar, for recording his name, which was allowed by order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955. Due to mistake, his name was not recorded in khatauni of subsequent year. Ram Surat filed an application (registered as Case No. 8/887) before Tahsildar, for recording his name, which was allowed by order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955. In pursuance thereof, name of Ram Surat was mutated in khatauni 1365 F. The order was also mentioned in Malikan Register. By The Uttar Pradesh Land Laws Amendment Act, 1961, (U.P. Act No. X of 1961) the orders passed by Tahsildar under principal Act i.e. U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, were validated. Village in question was placed under Survey and Record Operation under Section 48 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Final Settlement Record was prepared in 1369 F, in which, name of Ram Surat was again recorded. Section 44 and 57 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 raise presumption regarding correctness of entries in Annual Register and Settlement Entries. Mewa or his widow never challenged order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955. They never raised any claim during record operation or thereafter. Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati Devi, who are strangers, for the first time 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 owners of the land in dispute and deleting the names of Ram Surat and his transferees on 2.6.1988, i.e. after more than 33 years. This suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter, objection was filed during consolidation, which was dismissed by order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.1991. Although in recall application, 30.12.1991 was the date fixed but by making forgery, the order was recalled in back date i.e. 21.12.1991, by writing word “swikrit” on recall application. There is no evidence to prove that Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parvati Devi were daughters of Mewa or they were in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner is daughter of Ram Surat and Smt. Gangi and also obtained sale-deeds from then of the land in dispute. The names of Ram Surat and Smt. Gangi were through out recorded since 1955 till basic consolidation year, heavy burden was upon respondent-4 to prove her title and possession. Burden of proof has been wrongly shifted upon the petitioner. The petitioner is daughter of Ram Surat and Smt. Gangi and also obtained sale-deeds from then of the land in dispute. The names of Ram Surat and Smt. Gangi were through out recorded since 1955 till basic consolidation year, heavy burden was upon respondent-4 to prove her title and possession. Burden of proof has been wrongly shifted upon the petitioner. Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to follow the direction in remand order of this Court, in its true spirit, inasmuch as he was directed to record a findings regarding genuineness of the amaldaramad of the order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955 as made in khatauni 1363-F to 1365 F but he has not recorded a definite finding in this respect. Consolidation authorities ignored the order of Tahsildar on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to correct annual register, without considering khasra 1359 F and that the orders of Tahsildar were validated by U.P. Act No. X of 1961. 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. 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 respondent-4 to prove her title and continuous possession. Consolidation authorities illegally held that entry of the name of Ram Surat was made by making forgery, without considering the fact that he was recorded occupant in 1359 F also. 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. 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. He relied upon judgments Supreme Court in Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah, AIR 1965 SC 54 , Wali Mohammad v. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 , Udai v. DDC and others, AIR 1990 SC 471 , Hira Lal v. Gajjan, (1990) 3 SCC 285 , and judgment of this Court Pir Khan v. DDC and others, 1965 ALJ 591, Chobey Sunder Lal v. Sonu @ Sonpal, 1967 ALJ 960 (FB), Km. Radha Kishori v. JDC and others, 1972 ALJ 738 (DB) and Sitawan v. Pradeep Kumar, 2006 (101) RD 215, in which it has been held that a person recorded as “occupant” in 1359 F had become sirdar under Section 20 of U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951. In Joint Collector Ranga Reddy v. D. Narsing Rao, (2015) 3 SCC 695 , it has been held that even if no limitation has been provided, the order is required to be challenged within reasonable time. Judgments of Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Manbiar Manjeri Mannikoti Nanduvi, (1996) 1 SCC 435 , Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba, (2004) 4 SCC 377, Nagappan v. Ammasai Gounder, (2004) 13 SCC 450, M. Minakshi v. Metadin Agrawal, (2006) 7 SCC 470 , Sneh Gupta v. Devi Swarup, (2009) 6 SCC 194 and Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Enviromental Action Group, (2011) 3 SCC 363 , in which it has been held that a void order, if not set aside in proper forum, it cannot be ignored in collateral proceeding. State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Narain Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 115 and Rajendra Shankar Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2015 SC 3147 , in which it has been held that legislature is competent to make law retrospectively and validate the action which was otherwise without jurisdiction. State of Himanchal Pradesh v. Narain Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 115 and Rajendra Shankar Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2015 SC 3147 , in which it has been held that legislature is competent to make law retrospectively and validate the action which was otherwise without jurisdiction. State of U.P. v. Synthetic and Chemical Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139 , M/s. Ariane Orgachem Pvt. Ltd. v. Wyeth Employees Union, (2015) 7 SCC 561 and Satendra Kumar v. Raj Nath Dubey, 2016 SCC online 478, in which it has been held that previous judgment on issue of law does not operate as res judicata. 10. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Although, the orders of consolidation authorities, challenged in this writ petition have been upheld by this Court in Writ B No. 52946 of 2015 Zahruddin v. State of U.P. and others, by judgment dated 16.9.2015. But in view of cases cited above, by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court proposes to decide the points raised in this writ petition again. 11. Under Section 20 (b) (ii) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, a person recorded as occupant in khasra or khatuni 1356 F prepared under Section 28 and 33 respectively of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, or who was on the date, immediately proceeding the date of vesting entitled to regain possession thereof under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of United Provinces Tenancy Amendment Act, 1947, shall be called adhivasi of the land and shall subject to provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession thereof. Explanation-II to this section provides that where any entry in the records referred to in clause (b) has been corrected before the date of vesting under or in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1091, the entry so corrected shall for the purposes of the said clause shall prevail. By U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 (U.P. Act No. 20 of 1954) Chapter IX-A was added in U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, by which adhivasi were conferred sirdari right. In present case, the petitioner did not file any document to show that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in 1356 F. The petitioner relied upon khasra 1359 F, in which name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark column. In present case, the petitioner did not file any document to show that Ram Surat was recorded as occupant in 1356 F. The petitioner relied upon khasra 1359 F, in which name of Ram Surat was recorded in remark column. Entry of 1359 F is relevant only in those cases, where it was corrected, according to the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Thus on its basis, no right can be claimed. Supreme Court in Bachan v. Kankar, AIR 1972 SC 2157 , held that it is too obvious to be stressed that an entry which is incorrectly introduced into the records by reason of ill-will or hostility is not only shorn of authenticity but also becomes utterly useless without any lawful basis. 12. Due to contradictory judgments Supreme Court and this Court on the issue as to who can be treated as “recorded occupant” under Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, the matter was referred to a Bench of five Judges in Basdeo v. Board of Revenue, U.P., AIR 1974 All 337 (SB), in which it has been held that the phrase “recorded as occupant” has a technical significance. Before record of the name of any person in the khasra or khatauni can be treated as a record of an occupant, the entry must be established to be made according to provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and U.P. Land Record Manual, governing the making of entries of occupant and entry must be genuine and not fictitious. If a person is recorded in the sub-tenant’s column and another person is recorded as a mortgagee in the remark’s column, none of them will be deemed to be a “recorded occupant”. This judgment has been approved by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges in Chandrika Prasad v. Pullo, (2000) 4 SCC 227 . Similar view has been taken in Ram Harakh v. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 484 . In view of contradictory judgments, judgment of larger Bench of Chandrika Prasad (supra) has to be followed. 13. U.P. Land Records Manual prescribes form of khasra. Column-5 of khasra, is for recording the name of cultivator and rent, if changed. Similar view has been taken in Ram Harakh v. Hamid Ahmad Khan, (1998) 7 SCC 484 . In view of contradictory judgments, judgment of larger Bench of Chandrika Prasad (supra) has to be followed. 13. U.P. Land Records Manual prescribes form of khasra. Column-5 of khasra, is for recording the name of cultivator and rent, if changed. Column-6 is for recording the names of sub-tenants or tenants of sir or tenants of permanent tenure holders or rent free grantees or grantees at a favourable rent or occupier of land without consent of the person (entitled to admit a sub-tenants and rent). Detail procedure for making entry in column-6 of khasra is given in Paragraph-87 of U.P. Land Records Manual. In present case, name of Mewa was recorded in column-5 of khasra as cultivator. Ram Surat may either be sub-tenant or occupier of land without consent of the tenant. His name must be recorded in column-6 of khasra 1359 F, if he was found in actual cultivatory posession during partal. Entry of column-6 of khasra can alone be regarded as an entry of “recorded occupant” for purposes of Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Ram Surat cannot be treated as “recorded occupant” on its basis nor he can be given right of sirdar under Section 20 (b) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In any case, as held above, he was not recorded in 1356 F as such on the basis of khasra 1359 F alone no right accrued. 14. So far as alleged order of Tahsildar dated 19.4.1955, endorsement of which has been made in Malikan Register and amaldaramad of which was made in khatauni 1365 F, is concerned, at the time of hearing of Writ Petition No. 62174 of 2014, the counsel for the respondent had produced a questioner to the effect that no case was registered before Tahsildar in the year 1955 on the application of Ram Surat nor any order was passed on 19.4.1955. He submitted that 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 family of Mewa nor the petitioner could adduce any evidence to justify for recording the name of Ram Surat over the land of Mewa. He submitted that 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 family of Mewa nor the petitioner could adduce any evidence to justify for recording the name of Ram Surat over the land of Mewa. As the questioner was produced before this Court as such the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, for giving opportunity of evidence to both the parties, with direction to record a fresh findings as to whether entry made in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F was genuine or forged. After remand, the petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that any application was filed by Ram Surat or any order was passed by Tahsildar on it on 19.4.1955 to justify the entry made in khatauni 1363 F-1366 F nor she could file any thing in writ petition in this respect. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that entry of the name of Ram Surat in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F for the first time is a forgery. U.P. Act No. X of 1961 validated genuine orders and not a forgery/fabrication in records. Fabricated entry does not affect the right and title of Mewa or his heirs. Under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Tahsildar has no jurisdiction record the name of any person in khatauni except in cases of transfer or succession as held by Supreme Court in Jagdeo Singh v. Mithailal, AIR 1981 SC 1005 . 15. Even if the order of Tahsildar or settlement entry of 1369 F had been genuine, it would be an order under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Section 40-A and Section 54 (8) (b) of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, provides that the orders passed relating to mutation/correction by revenue Court in proceedings under Section 33, 35, 39, 40 and 54 can always be challenged in the suit and has no effect of res judicata. Appendix-III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 provides limitation for the suit and other proceedings under the Act. Appendix-III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 provides limitation for the suit and other proceedings under the Act. For filing a suit for declaration of right under Section 229-B, limitation is “none” vide Entry-39-B. Supreme Court in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 , Durga Das v. Collector, AIR 1996 SC 2786 , Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2181 , Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2719 , Mahila Bajrangi v. Badribai, (2003) 2 SCC 464 , Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 1879 and Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , held that mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. In State of A.P. v. Hyderabad Potteries (P) Ltd., (2010) 5 SCC 382 and Union of India v. 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. A Division Bench of this Court in Shri Ram v. DDC and others, 2011(4) ADJ 289 (DB), after reviewing entire law on the subject, held that a long standing entry hold only a presumptory value and cannot be taken as absolute proof of title. 16. On coming to know about this entry in revenue records, Smt. Nanki and Smt. Parwati Devi (claiming themselves as the daughters and heirs of Mewa) 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 owners of the land in dispute and deleting the names of Ram Surat, Smt. Gangi and their transferees on 2.6.1988. This suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter, objection was filed during consolidation on 21.8.1991. This suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act and thereafter, objection was filed during consolidation on 21.8.1991. Consolidation Officer found that name of Mewa was recorded in khatauni 1360 F and 1363 F. 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. Under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, Tahsildar had jurisdiction to 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, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that amaldaramad made in khatauni 1363 F-1365 F by the order of Tahsidar is a fabricated entry. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India, (2011) 10 SCC 543 , relying upon previous judgments in Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu, (1979) 2 SCC 34 , Union of India v. Pramod Gupta, (2005) 12 SCC 1, National Institute of Technology v. Niraj Kumar Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 481 and Chandrabhai K. Bhoir v. Krishna Arjun Bhoir, (2009) 2 SCC 315 , held that an order passed without jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be a coram non judice [and] non est in the eye of the law. Principles of res judicata would not apply to such cases.” 17. 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. v. Ram Surat, AIR 1989 SC 2296 . Again in Vikram Singh Junior High School v. District Magistrate (Fin. 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. v. 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. 18. So far as burden of proof is concerned, both the parties adduced their evidence as such burden of proof has no role. The dispute has been decided on considering evidence of the parties. Findings of facts that Smt. Parwati Devi is daughter and heir of Mewa and had been in possession of the land in dispute cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. A Bench of four Hon’ble Judges in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 , held that it is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. In Government of Orissa v. Ashok Transport Agency, (2002) 9 SCC 28 , held that the expressions “void and voidable” have been the subject-matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by Courts. The expression “void” has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same, no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is a good transaction against the whole world. So far as the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be one which is not a nullity but for avoiding the same, a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e.g., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given, a transaction becomes void from the very beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable. Similar view has been taken in Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip, (2014) 2 SCC 465 , in which it has been held that it is well-settled that such a void order can create neither legal rights nor obligations. Similar view has been taken in Shivshankar Gurgar v. Dilip, (2014) 2 SCC 465 , in which it has been held that it is well-settled that such a void order can create neither legal rights nor obligations. Therefore, the appellant cannot be denied his right to recover possession of the property in dispute on the ground that he did not choose to challenge such a void order. The cases relied by the counsel for the petitioner for a contrary proposition have no application as in this case, as initial entry in favour of the petitioner was not a genuine entry. Statute itself provides for suit to establish right and title for which no limitation has been provided. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. ———————