JUDGMENT & ORDER : Sunita Agarwal, J. 1. The order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in suo motu proceedings initiated on an inquiry report submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, is under challenge in the present petition. At the outset, the ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard before the order impugned was passed. He then submits that much after the consolidation operations were over, the instant proceedings had been initiated on the complaint of one person who had nothing to do with the disputed lands. The said complaint could not have been entertained by the Consolidation Authorities to initiate suo motu proceedings. 2. The submission is that the fact that the petitioner was not heard is sufficient to set aside the order impugned. 3. Entries in Aakar Patra 45 and other records of consolidation have been conveniently ignored by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation. Dealing with the said submission, it would be relevant to note that the complaint was of forged entries made during the course of consolidation operations. On the said report, the Consolidation Commissioner had initiated an inquiry and deputed the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Azamgarh to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry report dated 26.10.2012 was received wherein it was reported that many of the plots of public utility lands are now recorded in the name of private persons without their names being there in the previous records. 4. Another inquiry report dated 3.11.2017 was submitted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on the basis of record of the Consolidation Office. The report says that Bheeta, Pashuchar, Tal, Usar, Banjar and abadi lands of public purpose which fall within the meaning of Section 132 of the land have been recorded in the name of several tenure-holders by manipulation of records. 5. The matter came to this Court and a direction was given vide judgment and order dated 5. 5. 2016 to look into the matter and decide on merits. 6. It appears that the petitioner Shahid Azmi S/o Matinuddin who was village Pradhan filed his written objections. The said fact is recorded at internal page 4 of the order impugned. 7. The matter came to this Court and a direction was given vide judgment and order dated 5. 5. 2016 to look into the matter and decide on merits. 6. It appears that the petitioner Shahid Azmi S/o Matinuddin who was village Pradhan filed his written objections. The said fact is recorded at internal page 4 of the order impugned. 7. It appears that after giving hearing to the counsel for the complainant, the District Government Counsel and the objections taken by the petitioner herein, it was held therein that in Aakar Patra 45, the land of gata no. 58 in khata no. 430 has been assigned new gata no. 294 area 1. 48 kari and has been recorded in the name of Shahid Azmi whereas in Aakar Patra 11, Gata no. 58 40 kari is recorded as Navin Parti and Gata No. 58/200 kari is recorded in Banjar Khta. Similarly, in CH Form 11, Gata No. 653/8. 580 kari is recorded in the khata of Kabristan. New Gata No. 311 Ka (which was carved out from old Gata No. 653) area 0. 270 kari recorded as 311 kha/8. 580 kari is correctly recorded as school farm and Kabristan; respectively. However, it is not clear as to how gata no. 311 area 0. 057 kari in khata no. 413 the name of Shahid Azmi has been recorded though his name was not found in the records available prior to the current consolidation. 8. Similarly in Gata no. 737 (whereupon new Gata no. 1244 area 1. 430 has been carved out), name of Shahid Azmi S/o Matinuddin in Khata no. 413 has been recorded though his name was not found in the previous revenue records. 9. This apart, It was found that with respect to many of the plots which were reserved for public purpose, there was manipulation in the area and by reducing the reserved area of public utility land, new plots have been created in order to provide undue benefits to the selected few. Aakar patra 41 and 45 prepared by the Chakbandi department were found forged. It was held that forged entries were made by the Consolidation Officers and employees in convenience with some private persons so as to accord them benefits. A direction was given to cancel all such entries which are against the record and correct Aakar patra 41 and 45. Aakar patra 41 and 45 prepared by the Chakbandi department were found forged. It was held that forged entries were made by the Consolidation Officers and employees in convenience with some private persons so as to accord them benefits. A direction was given to cancel all such entries which are against the record and correct Aakar patra 41 and 45. A direction has also been given to restore the land in pond, Bheeta, Pashuchar, Tal, Usar, Banjar and abadi and take action against the erring officers as also to lodge the FIR against those persons with whose instance the misappropriation/misuse of public land has been done. 10. Looking to the said findings, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard before the said order was the passed is not worthy of acceptance. In none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner did not file his written objections. The averments with regard to the information providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner are vague and are not specific. 11. Even otherwise, the order impugned is an order passed in suo motu proceedings by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the final stage of consolidation when CH Forms 41 and 45 were prepared by manipulation in the records of consolidation. There is no adjudication of rights of any of the parties but the direction is to set the record straight. 12. The bar of Section 49 of CH Act as alleged would be attracted in a case where the matter has been adjudicated during the course of consolidation by the consolidation Court or the issues which could have been raised before them but not raised. Here the question arises is of correction of forgery in the entries of the current consolidation operations found at the time of preparation of final records. The Consolidation Authorities in order to put the record straight after verifying the same from the record office made inquiries so as to ensure that the final consolidation records are prepared strictly in conformity with the records before them and the consolidation scheme prepared by them is fair and just. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having supervisory powers is under an obligation to ensure that the records prepared by the Consolidation Authorities after the closure of the consolidation operations is correct. 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having supervisory powers is under an obligation to ensure that the records prepared by the Consolidation Authorities after the closure of the consolidation operations is correct. 13. The order impugned has been passed in suo motu exercise of supervisory powers by the Deputy Director of Consolidation after inviting reports of the consolidation authorities and going through the record. This Court, therefore, does not find any justification to interfere in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned. It is categorically recorded that the entries of his name seems to be forged inasmuch as there is no previous entry in the records available in the consolidation office. Moreover, this observation made by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order impugned would not amount to adjudication of the rights, if any, of the petitioner. It would always be open for the petitioner to file a suit for declaration of his right over the land in question. The bar of Section 49 of the Consolidation Act would not come into play. For all the above noted reasons, the writ petition is found devoid on merits and hence dismissed. 14. It is, however, made clear that the findings recorded by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation in the order impugned regarding the forgery of entry in the name of the petitioner would not come in his way, in case, the petitioner files a suit for declaration of his rights as the rights therein would be required to be decided on the merits of the case of the petitioner pleaded therein.