JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 25.5.2016 and 2.11.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Assistant Collector, Class-I, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow and the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, respectively. 3. It is the case of the petitioners as argued by Shri Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners filed a Suit registered as Case No. 5 of 2007-08, under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act saying that they had bought land of Khata No. 160 Gata No. 12/0.297 hectare situated in Village Adhar Khera, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Ta-lab, Lucknow, from one Sunil Kumar Singh son of Ram Khilawan, who was the Bhumidhar, with transferable rights of the said property. In pursuance of such sale deed the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Revenue Record on 8.4.2005 by the Tehsildar Bakshi Ka Talab. The petitioners also bought the land of Khata No. 10, Gata No. 11/0.043 hectare and Gata No. 13/0.002 hectare i.e. two plots of land, Total area 0.045 hectares situated in Village Adhar Khera, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow, from one Ishwardeen son of Narayan who was the recorded tenure holder of the said land through a registered sale deed and the name of the petitioner No. 1 was recorded in the Revenue Record on 10.5.2005. The petitioners being in possession of the aforesaid land, their possession was being disturbed by the Officers of the Forest Department and therefore, they filed a Suit under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act praying for possession of land of which they were recorded tenure holders on the basis of a registered sale deeds. In the said Suit, the petitioners had impleaded the Divisional Forest Officer, Awadh Forest Division, Indra Nagar, Lucknow, and the Gaon Sabha Aadhar Khera through its Gram Pradhan as the defendant. The State of U.P. through Dy. Collector, Revenue was made respondent No. 3 in the said Suit. 4. The Gram Sabha filed a written statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Divisional Forest Officer also filed his written statement on the same day i.e. on 2.7.2008. 5. The State of U.P. through Dy. Collector, Revenue was made respondent No. 3 in the said Suit. 4. The Gram Sabha filed a written statement before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Divisional Forest Officer also filed his written statement on the same day i.e. on 2.7.2008. 5. After filing of written statement by the Divisional Forest Officer, on 2.7.2008 another written statement was filed by the Regional Forest Officer, Kukrail, Forest Region, Awadh Forest Division, Lucknow, on 15.5.2010 and on 25.8.2010 a third written statement was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Lucknow before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After arguments were heard written arguments were also filed on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer on 5.5.2012. 6. Thereafter, the evidence of witnesses were recorded from the side of plaintiffs as well as the defendant. The defendant No. 1 authorized one Pawan Kumar Sachan one Van Daroga to appear as defence witness and his evidence was recorded on 21.2.2009. The evidence of Radhey Lal, Lekhpal, was recorded on 14.7.2009. 7. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, opposite party No. 2 passed an order on 10.9.2012 wherein he allowed the Suit of the petitioners and ordered for ejectment of Prabhagiya Van Adhikari, who was found to have taken possession of the land of the petitioners without any Right. 8. After the order was passed an application was filed on 4.12.2012 on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer saying that no order be passed without hearing the Forest Department, the said application was rejected on 11.12.2012 by the opposite party No. 2 saying that final order has already been passed on 10.9.2012, and the application is misconceived. The orders dated 10.9.2012 and 11.12.2012 were not challenged any further by the Divisional Forest Officer. 9. Later, an application under Order IX Rule 13, read with section 151 of the CPC for recall of the order dated 10.9.2014 was filed alleging it to be an ex-parte order. Notice was issued and the effect of operation of the order dated 10.9.2012 was stayed by the opposite party No. 2 on 16.2.2013 and a further date was fixed for hearing. 10. The petitioners filed their objections to the said application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, saying that the said application was not maintainable and also filed their objections to the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. The petitioners filed their objections to the said application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, saying that the said application was not maintainable and also filed their objections to the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners thereafter, approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 5778 (M/S) of 2015 Vijay Kumar Singh Parmar and another v. State of LLP. and others with a direction to the opposite party No. 2 to decide the matter expeditiously. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 30.9.2015 directing that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC be decided expeditiously. The Restoration application was allowed finally by means of order dated 25.5.2016, even though the petitioners had filed their objections and stated clearly that the Divisional Forest Officer has obviously not stated the truth in his application and affidavit that the order dated 10.9.2012 came to his knowledge on 10.1.2013. 11. It has also been submitted that from the order dated 25.5.2016, it is evident that the same has been passed on merits after considering the written statement filed by the Gaon Sabha and the written statements filed on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer and also the oral evidence of one Pawan Kumar Sachan Van Daroga, and Radhey Lal Area Lekhpal. It could not be said to be an ex-parte order and therefore, the application under Order IX Rule 13 was not maintainable. 12. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had filed a Revision before the Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which has been rejected by the opposite party No. 1 on 2.11.2016 without giving any finding with regard to the grounds raised therein by the petitioner. The only observations of the opposite party No. 1 in the order impugned is that since the land is claimed to be the Reserved Forest land and the Divisional Forest Officer, Awadh Forestry Officer is entitled that the matter should be decided on merits and that opposite party No. 2 has only set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.9.2012, and fixed a date for hearing the matter on merits, and it shall be open for the petitioners to press their case before the opposite party No. 2 afresh. 13. 13. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the second application filed on 4.2.2013 was not maintainable, as an application had already been filed which had been rejected on 11.12.2012. 14. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, points out from the copy of the application dated 4.12.2012, alleged to have been filed by the respondent No. 3 that it clearly prays for opportunity to place the evidence and to be heard and is not an application for Recall. It is the case of the learned Standing Counsel that only one application for Recall of order dated 10.9.2012 was moved that was moved only on 4.2.2013 by the respondent No. 3. 15. On merits of the case, learned Standing Counsel has stated that, it is evident from the copies of written statements filed before the S.D.M. concerned that reference was given in such written statements to the Revenue Department Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 4.9.1946 and of Gazette Notification dated 9.12.1946, under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the total area of 5112.94 acres land. Later on, a Notification under section 17 of the Act of 1894, was also issued for taking over possession of the land acquired under sections 4 & 6 of the Act of 1894. Out of area of 5112.94 acres, 226 acres of land was situated in Village Adhar Khera, Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Malihabad, (now Bakshi Ka Talab), Lucknow. Not only the land of Village Aadhar Khera was acquired but the land of 15 other villages of Pargana Mahona, Tehsil Bakshi Ka Talab, was also acquired and taken over possession and similarly the land of 11 other villages of Tehsil Lucknow, was also acquired and taken over possession. 16. Separate proceedings were thereafter, held with respect to Forest land of each of these villages and after payment of compensation, a warrant was issued for Mutation/Amaldaramad in favour of the Forest Department. The area was divided into Kukrail Eastern Block and Kukrail Western Block. 17. It has also been stated by the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit filed in this petition, that the Reserved Forest Area under section 4 and thereafter, under section 20 of the Act was declared by a Notification dated 22.6.1954. The area was divided into Kukrail Eastern Block and Kukrail Western Block. 17. It has also been stated by the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit filed in this petition, that the Reserved Forest Area under section 4 and thereafter, under section 20 of the Act was declared by a Notification dated 22.6.1954. In the counter affidavit there is a mention that Gata No. 11 Ga, area 0.043 hectare, Gata No. 12 area 0.297 hectare, and Gata No. 13 area 0.002 hectare situated in Village Aadhar Khera, are a part of the Reserved Forest and they were parts of the original numbers i.e. Gata Nos. 45 M, 47 M and 48 M, which are Reserved Forest Land and during First Consolidation operations, the numbers were changed to Gata Nos. 36, 35/1 and 23/1M and after Second Consolidation operations, the numbers were changed to Gata Nos. 11 Ga, 12 and 13 which all come under Forest boundary pillars Nos. 12, 13 and 14. 18. The land in question claimed by the petitioners as their land is in fact the part of the Forest land of Village Aadhar Khera, within the boundary of Reserved Forest. 19. It has been stated further by the learned Standing Counsel that despite such facts being brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 2 and also being mentioned in the order dated 10.9.2012 by the opposite party No. 2 no cognizance thereafter, was taken but reliance was placed on the statement made by the petitioner herein in their replication that during First Consolidation operations in 1960 and the Second Consolidation operations of 1998, the Forest Department never raised any objection under section 9A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and, therefore, they were barred by under section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act to raise such objections regarding title of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners who were recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land in question. 20. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court took one statement of one Pawan Kumar Sachan, Van Daroga that the Forest Department had no concern with Gata Nos. 20. It has been submitted that the learned Trial Court took one statement of one Pawan Kumar Sachan, Van Daroga that the Forest Department had no concern with Gata Nos. 11 Ga, 12 & 13 situated at Village Aadhar Khera, out of context, whereas in the same statement, the Van Daroga had also stated that the land over which the petitioners are claiming their right belonged to Reserved Forest and comes within the boundary pillars Nos. 12, 13 & 14 of the Kukrail Forest, District Awadh Forest Division. 21. It has been submitted that since the pleadings on record were not appreciated at all in the order dated 10.9.2012, the application for Recall of order was filed by the Forest Department along-with application for Condonation of delay on 10.1.2013, which has rightly been allowed and the Revision was rejected. It has been submitted that if the petitioners are indeed the owners of the land in question they should not shy away from a proper hearing on merits of the case before the opposite party No. 2. 22. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder affidavit has submitted that the order passed by the opposite party No. 2 on 10.9.2012 is a detailed order taking into account all the submissions made by the defendant therein, including the Gaon Sabha, and it cannot be said to be an ex-parte order. As such, the application under Order IX Rule 13 was not maintainable and the proper course of action available for the respondents was to file an Appeal against the order dated 10.9.2012 which they have not done. 23. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Vivek Shukla, and also perused the affidavits on record including counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents before this Court to this writ petition, and also the three written statements filed before the opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 5 of 2007. In all such written statements, a mention has been made that the area in question including the land over which the petitioners claimed possession as Bhumidhar, had been declared as Reserved Forest Area under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act in 1954. In all such written statements, a mention has been made that the area in question including the land over which the petitioners claimed possession as Bhumidhar, had been declared as Reserved Forest Area under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act in 1954. The said entries relating to Reserved Forest Area under section 20 had attained the finality under section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act, (which has come by way of an amendment in 1965). It has been stated in all the written statements also that the land had been in possession of the Forest Department right from 1947 onwards till 2007, when the Case No. 5 of 2007 has been filed. No one has objected to such possession for the past 60 years and all of a sudden the application under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has been filed on the basis of alleged sale deeds executed by the recorded tenure holders in favour of the petitioners. 24. From a perusal of the written statement filed on 25.8.2010, it is evident that the numbers of the Gazette Notification dated 4.9.1946, with regard to 227 acres of land of Village Aadhar Khera, Pargana Mahona, and the numbers Gazette Notification issued thereafter for declaring the area as Forest Land, as also the Regular proceedings for compensation namely Suit 37/68 and the order passed thereunder, giving compensation to the villagers whose land had been taken for Reserved Forest by the Forest Department have been mentioned therein. The date of mutation of the land in question in favour of the Government i.e. 27.5.1947 has also been mentioned. As also the Notification No. 2132/14 dated 22.6.1954, has been mentioned under section 20 of the Forest Act, by which the land was declared as Reserved Forest in Village Aadhar Khera with effect from 1.9.1954. The learned Trial Court, the opposite party No. 2 has not taken into account the facts mentioned in the written statement on oath by the officials concerned. 25. The learned Trial Court, the opposite party No. 2 has not taken into account the facts mentioned in the written statement on oath by the officials concerned. 25. The opposite party No. 2 also did not find it appropriate to direct the plaintiff to implead the State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Forest which had issued the Notification in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of State of U.P. to be impleaded as defendant, Even State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Revenue) which had issued the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, in 1946 in the name of His Excellency, the Government of U.P. has not been made a party. The opposite party No. 2 failed to appreciate sub-section (2) section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which states that every Suit relating to land referred to in Clause (a) i.e. Clause (a) of sub-section-1, where Bhumidhari Rights are claimed, the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party. 26. It has also been stated by Shri Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel that for every Suit filed under section 209 in relation to land under sub-section 1(a), a notice under section 80 of the CPC read with section 105 of the Panchayati Raj Act had also to be given to the defendants prior to the filing of the said suit. 27. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that it is evident from the array of the defendants of the suit, a copy which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, that the State of U.P. through Dy. Collector (Revenue), Lucknow, has been made a party as the defendant No. 3. 28. This however, amounts to a mis-joinder of party, as the State of U.P. could not have been impleaded through Dy. Collector (Revenue), Lucknow, as per Financial Handbook Volume-1. 29. Collector (Revenue), Lucknow, has been made a party as the defendant No. 3. 28. This however, amounts to a mis-joinder of party, as the State of U.P. could not have been impleaded through Dy. Collector (Revenue), Lucknow, as per Financial Handbook Volume-1. 29. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Upendra Singh, has further pointed out section 11-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is as follows: "In the course of hearing of an objection under section 9-A or an appeal under section 11, or in proceedings under section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority.") 30. It has been argued by Shri Up-Ira Singh, learned Standing Counsel that even if no objections had been filed under section 9-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, during consolidation operations, the Officers concerned ought to have looked into the Gazette Notifications and previous Land Revenue Records and directed that land which was recorded initially in the name of the State Government and the Forest Department may be recorded in its name, even that no Objection/Appeal or Revision had been filed by the Government, the Gaon Sabha or Local body or Authority. 31. Also, the petitioners have filed a Suit under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for ejectment of unauthorized persons from his Bhumidhari land. It is not clear whether any declaration under section 229-B of the Act had ever been issued and the petitioners had been declared as Bhumidhar of the land which had already been notified in 1946 and thereafter in 1954, to belong to the State Government. 32. Writ jurisdiction is an extra ordinary jurisdiction a writ of certiorari, as prayed for by the petitioners is an extra ordinary relief which is discretionary and cannot be granted as a matter of course. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateshivar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1966 (2) SCR 172 , has held that where substantial justice has been done a writ of certiorari quashing the order under challenge will not be issued. 33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateshivar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1966 (2) SCR 172 , has held that where substantial justice has been done a writ of certiorari quashing the order under challenge will not be issued. 33. In this particular case, this Court does not find any good ground to show interfere in the orders impugned in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 34. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 35. During the hearing of this case, this Court has noticed the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the written statement filed on 2.7.2008, 15.5.2010 and 25.8.2010, and in the oral evidence of Pawan Kumar Sachan, the then Range Forest Officer, Kukrail. Forest Region, it has been stated that the Forest Department had no concern with Gata Nos. 12, 11 Ga and 13 situated in Village Aadhar Khera, and at the same time, it has been stated that these plots of land were situated within the boundary pillars of Reserved Forest Land, which was settled by the Forest Settlement Officer in 1950, and the Notification was issued thereafter in 1954. 36. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forests and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, who shall look into the circumstances under which such misleading statements were made before the opposite party No. 2 by the then Van Daroga Shri Pawan Kumar Sachan, and then Area Lekhpal Radhey Lal, and also the Range Forest Officer, Kukrail and the Divisional Forest Officer, Awadh Forestry Division, Indra Nagar, Lucknow. A preliminary inquiry conducted to establish the responsibility of the Officers making such irresponsible statements before the opposite party No. 2. 37. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. is directed to hold a meeting with the Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Additional Chief Secretary Revenue within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt a certified copy of the order and consider whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against such officers. 37. The Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. is directed to hold a meeting with the Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Additional Chief Secretary Revenue within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt a certified copy of the order and consider whether disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against such officers. On the facts as have come out during the course of the hearing of this writ petition before this Court, it seems as if the statements were made before the opposite party No. 2 to prejudice the case of the State Government and to favour the plaintiff/petitioners before the opposite party No. 2 for extraneous considerations. The Secretary Board of Revenue shall cooperate in the enquiry to be conducted in pursuance of this order. 38. Let a copy of this order be sent by the Senior Registrar to the State Government Officers concerned to take appropriate action.