JUDGMENT : Salil Kumar Rai, J. Heard Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, standing counsel for respondent no. 2 and Shri S.K.Mishra for respondent no.3. 2. The facts of the case are that on 21.2.1994, the respondent no. 4 filed an application before the Collector, Azamgarh alleging that the petitioner had got her name fraudulently recorded in C.H.Form 45 relating to Khata No.494 which was "navin parti" and therefore, vested in the Gaon Sabha and consequently prayed that the revenue records may be appropriately corrected. On the application of respondent no.3, Case No.87 was registered in the Court of Additional Collector (F&R) District Azamgarh under section 33/39/225 of U.P Land Revenue Act 1901 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1901). It is apparent from the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector,(F&R), District Azamgarh that in the said case no.87, the petitioner was issued a notice and granted time to file objections and produce evidence in her defence. However, the petitioner did not file any objections to the aforesaid application and also did not produce any documentary evidence in her support. Consequently, the Additional Collector (F&R) District Azamgarh after considering the revenue records, recorded a finding that the name of petitioner in the revenue records, especially in C.H.Form 45 relating to the disputed plot, was recorded on the basis of some decision passed in some Case No.1042 which from a perusal of the original copy of C.H.Form 45 appeared to have been overwritten after erasing the original contents of C.H.Form 45. The Additional Collector, after considering the fact that the plots in Khata No.494, were plots included under section 132 of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act,1950) and therefore, no person could have been granted tenurial right over the same, came to the conclusion that the entries in C.H.Form 45 were forged entries recorded on the basis of some fictitious judgments in a fictitious case allegedly instituted by the petitioner. Consequently, the Additional Collector (F&R) vide his order dated 16.9.1998 directed that the name of the petitioner from C.H.Form No.45 relating to Khata No.494 be deleted and the aforesaid khata be recorded against charagah, pokhri and navin parti. Through his aforesaid order, the Collector also directed that appropriate administrative and criminal proceedings be instituted against the persons who were responsible and involved in the aforesaid manipulation in the revenue records. Through his aforesaid order, the Collector also directed that appropriate administrative and criminal proceedings be instituted against the persons who were responsible and involved in the aforesaid manipulation in the revenue records. The order dated 16.9.1998 has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner has annexed with the writ petition, a copy of the alleged order dated 17.2.1967 passed in some case no.1042 allegedly instituted by her under section 9-A(2) of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953). It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 16.9.1998 passed by the Additional Collector, (F&R), Azamgarh was without jurisdiction in as much as under section 33/39 only the Collector and not the Additional Collector had the power to correct the revenue records. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that even if the order dated 17.2.1967 passed in favour of the petitioner in Case no.1042 was illegal and void, it had to be set aside by the competent authority in appropriate proceedings and the Additional Collector could not have directed to correct the revenue entries till the existence of the order dated 17.2.1967 passed by the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953. In support of his arguments, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Mewalal versus State of U.P and others, (2011) 5 ADJ 413 and the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.63307 of 2006 dated 7.4.2011 (Maharshi Dayanand High School, Manikala versus The Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Jaunpur & others. 4. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. Even though there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order but as the case is pending since 1998, the Court proceeded to hear the case on merits. So far as the first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the question that whether Collector includes Additional Collector was finally decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh versus Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad, (2008) 5 ADJ 331 , holding that under Act, 1901 Collector includes Additional Collector. So far as the first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the question that whether Collector includes Additional Collector was finally decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh versus Board of Revenue, U.P Allahabad, (2008) 5 ADJ 331 , holding that under Act, 1901 Collector includes Additional Collector. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the first argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 16.9.1998 is without jurisdiction is rejected. In his order dated 16.9.1998, the Additional Collector has recorded a categorical finding that the entries in favour of the petitioner in C.H.Form 45 relating to the disputed plots are forged and have been overwritten by erasing the original content of the aforesaid document by reference to fictitious orders and case allegedly instituted by the petitioner. The reference by the Additional Collector in his impugned order dated 16.9.1998 to Section 132 of the Act, 1950 and its consequences was merely an additional ground to fortify the conclusions recorded by the Additional Collector. The judgment of this Court relied upon by the petitioner referred above relates to void judgments and do not relate to fictitious and non existent orders fraudulently entered into the revenue records. 5. The order dated 16.9.1998 has been passed by the Additional Collector after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who, in response to the notice, preferred not to file any objections or produce any documentary evidence in support of her case. 6. For the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merits in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.