JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri M.N. Singh, for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, for respondents-3 to 6. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.03.2006 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 11.07.2016, passed in proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute related to the land of chak 200 (new plots 2614 and 2660) of village Fatehpur, tappa Nai, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria, which was carved out in the name of Jagar Nath son of Lochai. According to the petitioner, Jagar Nath mortgaged his aforesaid chak for Rs. 700/-, in favour of Hari Yadav son of Birjhan and Ram Briksh Yadav son of Heera Yadav, residents of village Thakurdeva, tappa Nai, pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria through unregistered mortgage deed dated 07.04.1978, for a period of two years and handed over possession over the disputed land to them. He could not repay mortgage money within period of two years and got mortgage redeemed. Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav filed an objection (registered as Case No. 139 of 1980) under Section 12 of the Act, for recording their names over the land in dispute. The case was contested by Jagar Nath. Before Consolidation Officer, original mortgage-deed dated 07.04.1978 was filed and its due execution was proved by Ram Chander, marginal witness and Dharamdev Singh, scribe. Jager Nath also appeared in witness box and in cross examination, admitted execution of mortgage-deed and delivery of possession to the mortgagees. Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.03.1981 found that Jager Nath executed mortgage-deed dated 07.04.1978 in favour of Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav and delivered possession of chak No. 200 to them. Mortgage-deed amounts to sale under Section 164 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On these findings, he allowed the objection and directed for recording the names of Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav over the disputed land. In spite of order dated 31.03.1981, names of Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav were not recorded over the land in dispute as such they filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 183 of 1993) under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, which was decreed by order dated 28.08.1993. 4. In spite of order dated 31.03.1981, names of Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav were not recorded over the land in dispute as such they filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 183 of 1993) under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, which was decreed by order dated 28.08.1993. 4. According to Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav (now represented by respondents-3 to 6), Smt. Ramdani Devi wife of Bunela Yadav and Smt. Kishori Devi wife of Pataroo Yadav were only issues of Jagar Nath. Jagar Nath executed sale deed dated 05.07.1985 of disputed land in favour of Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav and handed over possession over disputed land to them. Their names were also mutated in revenue records on the basis of sale deed. Jagar Nath neither executed any mortgage-deed dated 07.04.1978 nor ever handed over possession over disputed land to Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav. Jager Nath had been in possession till 05.07.1985 and thereafter they were in possession of the disputed land. Although on the basis of sale deed dated 05.07.1985, their names were mutated over disputed land but without impleading them as the defendants and without any notice to them, Suit No. 183 of 1993 was filed, in which exparte decree dated 28.08.1993 was passed. On coming to know about the aforesaid decree, they filed an application dated 18.01.1994, for setting aside exparte decree, which was dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 13.02.1995. They filed an appeal from aforesaid order, which was allowed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 13.08.1997. Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 144 of 1996-97) against aforesaid order, before Board of Revenue, U.P.. During pendency of the revision, they came to know about order of Consolidation Officer and were advised to file an appeal from this order as such they filed a time barred appeal against order dated 31.03.1981 along with delay condonation application, on 24.04.2000. 5. Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 09.03.2006, held that record relating to Case No. 139 of 1980, decided on 31.03.1981 was not available, as such it would be proper to condone delay and remand the case to Consolidation Officer to decide issues raised between the parties. 5. Settlement Officer Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 09.03.2006, held that record relating to Case No. 139 of 1980, decided on 31.03.1981 was not available, as such it would be proper to condone delay and remand the case to Consolidation Officer to decide issues raised between the parties. On these findings, he condoned delay in filing the appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside order dated 31.03.1981 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer with direction to reconstruct the file and decide issues between the parties afresh. Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3 of 2013) against aforesaid order. The revision was heard by District Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by her order dated 11.07.2016, held that Settlement Officer Consolidation tried to get record relating to Case No. 139 of 1980 (decided on 31.03.1981) but it could not be obtained. In revision also requisitions were sent for producing misilband register to concerned Consolidation Officer and Incharge Revenue Record Room, Collectorate Deoria. Reader of Consolidation Officer informed that there is nothing to show that misilband register of the year 1980-1981 was consigned to record room. Incharge Revenue Record Room, Collectorate Deoria informed that misilband register is not endorsed in goswara register. As such it is fully proved that order dated 31.03.1981 passed in Case No. 139 of 1980 was suspicious/fabricated order. Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer to decide the issues between the parties. On these findings revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was inordinate delay of about 19 years in filing the appeal. The respondents filed an application dated 18.01.1994 for setting aside decree of Revenue Court dated 28.08.1993. At that time they came to know about the order dated 31.03.1981 but even then the appeal was filed on 24.04.2000. There was absolutely no explanation of the delay in between 18.01.1994 to 24.04.2000. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally condoned the delay in filing the appeal without considering any fact and recording any finding in respect of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. From the report of Collectorate Record Room, it was proved that record of Case No. 139 of 1980 (decided on 31.03.1981) was weeded out on 05.03.1994. Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally condoned the delay in filing the appeal without considering any fact and recording any finding in respect of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. From the report of Collectorate Record Room, it was proved that record of Case No. 139 of 1980 (decided on 31.03.1981) was weeded out on 05.03.1994. In such circumstances, proper course for Settlement Officer Consolidation, was to first reconstruct the record and then hear the appeal. The appeal has been illegally allowed and order dated 31.03.1981 was set aside, without looking into the record of the case. Original mortgage-deed dated 07.04.1978 was filed in Case No. 139 of 1980. Its due execution was proved by Ram Chander, marginal witness and Dharamdev Singh, the scribe. Jager Nath also in his cross examination, admitted execution of mortgage-deed and delivery of possession to the mortgagees. Now the records (including original mortgage-deed and statement of witnesses) have been weeded out and witnesses including Jager Nath are not alive. Retrial of issues, which had already been decided two times i.e. firstly by Consolidation Officer and thereafter by Sub-Divisional Officer, has been illegally reopened. Respondent-1 also miserably failed to consider aforesaid grounds raised by the petitioner and dismissed the revision. There is absolutely no material before Respondent-1 to hold that order dated 31.03.1981 is suspicious/fabricated. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admitted fats are that in spite of alleged order dated 31.03.1981, the names of Hari Yadav and Ram Briksh Yadav were not recorded over the land in dispute as such they filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 183 of 1993) under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, which was decreed exparte by order dated 28.08.1993.The name of Jager Nath was recorded in final consolidation record (CH Form-45) and after close of consolidation operation, his name continued in new khatauni. Jagar Nath executed sale deed dated 05.07.1985 of disputed land in favour of Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav. Their names were also mutated in revenue records on the basis of sale deed. Jagar Nath executed sale deed dated 05.07.1985 of disputed land in favour of Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav. Their names were also mutated in revenue records on the basis of sale deed. Although the names Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav were mutated over disputed land but without impleading them as the defendants and without any notice to them, Suit No. 183 of 1993 was filed, in which exparte decree dated 28.08.1993 was passed. On coming to know about the aforesaid decree, they filed an application dated 18.01.1994, for setting aside exparte decree and the parties were litigating the matter before Revenue Courts. Thereafter, they filed appeal on 24.04.2000 from order dated 31.03.1981. Thus from date of knowledge, Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav, who claimed to be legal representative of Jager Nath, were bonafide litigating the matter before Revenue Court. Thereafter, they filed appeal during pendency of revision of the petitioner before Board of Revenue U.P. Thus there was sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing the appeal. Settlement Officer Consolidation has not committed any illegality in condoning delay in filing the appeal. 8. So far as allowing the appeal and setting aside order of Consolidation Officer dated 31.03.1981, is concerned, there is serious dispute between the parties, relating to genuineness of order dated 31.03.1981 passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No. 139 of 1980. This order was not given effect to in consolidation/revenue record for about 12 years, due to which, predecessors of the petitioner has to file another suit i.e. Suit No. 193 of 1993, in 1993 and during this period, name of Jager Nath and thereafter Bunela Yadav and Pataroo Yadav remained recorded in revenue record. The genuineness of the order dated 31.03.1981 has been challenged by the respondents. Thus heavy burden of proof was upon the petitioner to prove its genuineness. The petitioner has filed photostat copy of certified copy of the order dated 31.03.1981 (issued on 06.08.1981) and certified copy of goswara register issued on 04.04.2002. Under Rule 25 (e) (ii) and (f) Assistant Consolidation Officer has been required to register Cases of two categories (Section 9-A and Section 9-B) in separate misilband register. In view of Rule 30, the Cases under Section 12 are also required to be registered. Under Rule 25 (e) (ii) and (f) Assistant Consolidation Officer has been required to register Cases of two categories (Section 9-A and Section 9-B) in separate misilband register. In view of Rule 30, the Cases under Section 12 are also required to be registered. Now a days it has become very easy to make forgery in goswara register (a register maintained by Revenue Record Room, Collectorate to register the papers consigned to it). If question relating to genuineness of any record has to be decided then, its entry in misilband register has to be examined. In the present case, from the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation, requisitions were sent for producing misilband register to concerned Consolidation Officer and Incharge Revenue Record Room, Collectorate Deoria. Reader of Consolidation Officer informed that there is nothing to show that misilband register of the year 1980-1981 was consigned to record room. Incharge Revenue Record Room, Collectorate Deoria informed that misilband register is not endorsed in goswara register. The petitioner also in his application dated 14.9.2013 has mentioned that misilband register is not traceable. Before this Court, certified copy of misilband register relating to cases under Section 12 of the Act, from 19.12.1979 to 27.10.1980 was filed by the respondents, in which at serial number 139, Case of Om Prakash Vs. Ram Shree and others was registered. As such it was fully proved that there was no misilband register of the year 1980-1981. Findings of respondent-1 that order dated 31.03.1981 passed in Case No. 139 of 1980 was suspicious/fabricated order does not suffer from any illegality. If the case is not duly registered in misilband register, then trail of fabricated case will not be permitted to be conducted by consolidation officer, particularly after notification under Section 52 of the Act. However, due to the remand order, the petitioner has still an opportunity to satisfy Consolidation Officer regarding registration of his case in misilband register. As such no interference is required by this Court. However Consolidation Officer shall decide this issue afrsh without being influenced by any of the observation of this Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.