JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra, for the petitioners and Sri Pradeen Chandola along with Sri Shashank Shekher, for the contesting respondents. Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.07.2000 and Joint Director of Consolidation dated 26.05.2005, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to plot 784/4 (area 5-14-4 bigha) (new plot 1258 area 1.444 hectare)of village Suniyawan, pargana Bihar, district Pratapgarh. In basic consolidation year, land in dispute was recorded in the names of Babu Lal son of Jagan, Sukhdeo son of Dudh Nath (respondent-2), Mahadeo son of Binda, Nanhkau son of Mahabeer (respondent-4), Mata Badal son of Janki (respondent-5), Bhagauti son of Kamasi (respondent-6). Disputed land was grove holdings and chak out. Final consolidation record was prepared in the names of aforesaid persons. After consolidation, new number 1258 has been allotted. In khata-201 of CH Form-45, containing plot 1258, an amaldaramad dated 20.07.1996 was incorporated by which name Mahadeo son of Bachcha (now represented by the petitioners) was recorded, deleting the names of recorded tenure holders by the order of Consolidation Officer dated 09.07.1992 passed in Case No. 976 under Rule-109-A of the Rules, 1954, by which alleged order of Consolidation Officer dated 07.10.1977 passed in Case No. 16371, under Section 9-A of the Act Mahadeo v. Babu Lal, was given effect to. 4. Sukhdeo and others (respondents-2 to 6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 5433) from the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 21.07.2000 held that a perusal of record proved that in Bundle No. 221, case registered at Serial No. 61 was rubbed out and on its place Case No. 16371 Mahadeo v. Babu Lal was written. Although Cases No. 16371 and 16372 were in the names of State v. Jumman and others and registered in Bundle No. 229, of the village. From which it was proved that Case No. 16371 was not titled as Mahadeo v. Babu Lal. Certified copy of order dated 07.10.1977, passed in Case No. 16371, filed in Case No. 976, decided on 09.07.1992 was issued on 16.09.1999 by Assistant Consolidation Officer Bihar, which ought to be issued by Consolidation Officer Bihar. From which it was proved that Case No. 16371 was not titled as Mahadeo v. Babu Lal. Certified copy of order dated 07.10.1977, passed in Case No. 16371, filed in Case No. 976, decided on 09.07.1992 was issued on 16.09.1999 by Assistant Consolidation Officer Bihar, which ought to be issued by Consolidation Officer Bihar. This certified copy contains seal of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Pratapgarh, from which it was proved that it was a forged paper. The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 151/94/50/103/136 of 1966), under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, in which preliminary decree was passed on 20.09.1966. The petitioners filed an appeal from the aforesaid decree on 20.05.1996, which was dismissed on 17.07.1996. Although alleged amaldaramad was made on 20.07.1996 but in the appeal, there was no mention of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 07.10.1977 passed in Case No. 16371, which proved that there was no such case nor any order was passed in it. On these findings the appeal was allowed and order dated 09.07.1992 was set aside holding that order dated 07.10.1977 was forged and fabricated order. 5. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1019/681) against aforesaid order. Joint Director of Consolidation, by order dated 26.05.2005 affirmed aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submit that impugned order of respondent-2 was ex-parte and passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The revision was illegally dismissed by respondent-1. Plot 784/4 (area 5-14-4 bigha) was allotted new plot 1258. The name of Mahadeo son of Bachcha was recorded in third settlement record, over the land in dispute. This entry was continued in 1356 F and 1359 F khatauni. However in 1360 F khatauni, due to mistake of revenue department, father's name of Mahadeo was wrongly noted as Saraju in place of Bachcha. As such in consolidation, objection i.e. Case no. 16371 was filed by Mahadeo, which was decided in terms of compromise by order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 07.10.1977. Consolidation staff again committed negligence in not giving effect to the order dated 07.10.1977 as such the petitioners filed an application under Rule-109-A (registered as Case No. 976) which was allowed by order dated 09.07.1992. Findings that these papers were forged papers are illegal and without any basis. Consolidation staff again committed negligence in not giving effect to the order dated 07.10.1977 as such the petitioners filed an application under Rule-109-A (registered as Case No. 976) which was allowed by order dated 09.07.1992. Findings that these papers were forged papers are illegal and without any basis. Impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Settlement Officer Consolidation found that (i) registration of Case No. 16371 under Section 9-A of the Act, Mahadeo v. Babu Lal before Assistant Consolidation Officer Bihar was not proved. As in Bundle No. 229, Cases No. 16371 and 16372 were registered, which was in the names of State v. Jumman and others. In Bundle No. 221, case registered at Serial No. 61 was rubbed out and on its place Case No. 16371 Mahadeo v. Babu Lal was written. Case No. 16371 of the village was not titled as Mahadeo v. Babu Lal. (ii) Certified copy of the order dated 07.10.1977, filed in record of Case no. 976 was issued on 16.09.1999 although Case No. 976 was decided on 09.07.1992. (iii) Certified copy was issued by Assistant Consolidation Officer Bihar, and this certified copy contains seal of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Pratapgarh, which ought to be issued by Consolidation Officer Bihar. (iv) The petitioners filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 151/94/50/103/136 of 1966), under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, in which preliminary decree was passed on 20.09.1966. The petitioners filed an appeal from the aforesaid decree on 20.05.1996, which was dismissed on 17.07.1996. Although alleged amaldaramad was made on 20.07.1996 but in the appeal, order of Consolidation Officer dated 07.10.1977 passed in Case No. 16379 was not mentioned. For these reasons he found that there was no such case nor any order was passed in it. The reasons given by respondents-1 and 2 are cogent and logical reasons and do not suffer from any illegality. 8. The arguments that name of Mahadeo son of Bachcha was recorded in third settlement record over the land in dispute. This entry was continued in 1356 F and 1359 F khatauni. The reasons given by respondents-1 and 2 are cogent and logical reasons and do not suffer from any illegality. 8. The arguments that name of Mahadeo son of Bachcha was recorded in third settlement record over the land in dispute. This entry was continued in 1356 F and 1359 F khatauni. However in 1360 F khatauni, due to mistake of revenue department, father's name of Mahadeo was wrongly noted as Saraju in place of Bachcha, is concerned, a perusal of khatauni 1360 F shows that Jagan, Mahabeer and Mahadeo were real brothers and sons of Binda, now represented by respondents-2 to 6. They belonged to different caste namely "kurmi" while the petitioners belonged to caste "Ahir". In any case filing of objection during consolidation claiming his right by Mahadeo, father of the petitioners was not proved. There is absolutely no explanation as to how out of total area of 14-1-1 bigha of plot 784 an area of 5-14-4 bigha came to be recorded in the name of Mahadeo, father of the petitioners. 9. So far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, admittedly the petitioners filed revision, which was decided on merit after hearing the petitioners. Impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.