JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Upadhyay, Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents and Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel who has filed an application on behalf of Champa Devi as an intervener. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of mandamus commanding the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate, Azamgarh to direct his subordinate authorities to lodge a first information report in pursuance of the enquiry report of the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Azamgarh dated 12 September 2016 and to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 15 September 2016 by a reasoned and speaking order. 3. The representation dated 15 September 2016 has been filed by one Triloki Nath Jalan whom the petitioner claims to be his real brother. The petitioner alleges that he holds his power of attorney. In the said representation made to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, a request was made for lodging a first information report against the persons responsible for forging the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18.8.2010. On the said application, accordingly to the petitioner, no action was taken, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant writ petition. 4. It appears from the facts stated in the writ petition, that an inquiry was got conducted through Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Azamgarh in regard to the allegation that the order dated 18.8.2010 is a forged order. In the said enquiry, Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Azamgarh after recording the version of the then Consolidation Officer, concluded in his report dated 12.9.2016 that the order in question is a forged one. 5. On 10 November 2016, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions from the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh as regards the action taken in pursuance of the report of the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Azamgarh dated 12.9.2016. In pursuance thereof, instructions were furnished to the learned Standing Counsel which were placed on record. According to it, a FIR dated 6.12.2016 has been lodged against the erring officers. However, there is no indication if any action has been taken against them on the departmental side. This Court being not satisfied with the action taken, directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to remain personally present before this Court alongwith the relevant records. According to it, a FIR dated 6.12.2016 has been lodged against the erring officers. However, there is no indication if any action has been taken against them on the departmental side. This Court being not satisfied with the action taken, directed the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to remain personally present before this Court alongwith the relevant records. In compliance of the said order, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh is personally present before this Court and he has also filed an affidavit in which it is stated that against the order in question, statutory appeal is pending, in which the next date fixed is 24 December 2016. It has further been stated that upon receipt of the report from the Additional District Magistrate (Admn.), Azamgarh, he by communication dated 3.10.2016, addressed to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation requested him to expedite the proceedings of the appeal. In the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, it has further been mentioned that a charge sheet has been prepared against the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh and the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh and the same have been sent to the Consolidation Commissioner by letter dated 18.12.2016 for approval. In so far as the Consolidator (Rule 109-A), Arranger Revenue Record Room, Collectorate, Azamgarh and the Peshkar to the Consolidation Officer, Azamgarh, the charge sheet was approved. The Court has been informed that the charge sheets are in the process of being served upon the delinquent officers. 6. Learned counsel for Smt. Champa Devi submitted that the order dated 18.8.2010 is not a forged one and that the Consolidation Officer has passed similar orders in the past in his own hand writing. 7. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in case, the order of the Consolidation Officer is a forged one, action should be taken against the persons responsible in forging the same. Action to be taken against the such persons on the administrative side is independent of the proceedings which are pending in the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The intervener, if so advised, can always plead about the genuineness of the order before the forum before whom the issue is raised. 8. Action to be taken against the such persons on the administrative side is independent of the proceedings which are pending in the appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The intervener, if so advised, can always plead about the genuineness of the order before the forum before whom the issue is raised. 8. Since action has already been taken in the matter at the administrative level and this Court has been assured by learned Chief Standing Counsel that it will be taken to its logical conclusion, this writ petition stands disposed of by providing that further action be taken expeditiously, in accordance with law. 9. Personal appearance of the District Magistrate shall stand exempted.