JUDGMENT : Subhash Vidyarthi, J. 1. Heard Sri Yogeshwar Sharan Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to the opposite party no. 2-Consolidation Officer (Purana) for expeditious disposal of Case No. 65 of 2024, which is an application filed under Rule 109-A (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act Rules, 1954 (which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Rules of 1954’), for execution of an order dated 24.04.1993 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nawabganj in Case No. 3939. 3. Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. has raised a preliminary objection that the application under Rule 109-A has been filed after more than 30 years since passing of the alleged order dated 24.04.1993, a certified copy whereof has not been produced by the petitioner along with the application for execution of the order. The photocopy of the order dated 24.04.1993 filed alongwith the execution application is not admissible. In these circumstances, the photocopy of the irder dated 24.04.1993 prima facie appears to be forged. The original record of the proceedings in the court of Consolidation Officer stands weeded out. There is no method to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim regarding order dated 24.04.1993 in absence of a certified copy of the order dated 24.04.1993 having been filed by the petitioner along with his application dated 07.11.2023. 4. The learned Standing Counsel relied on a decision of this Court in case of Chandrajeet Ram v. State of U.P., 2009 SCC OnLine All 2446 = (2009) 108 RD 190, in which a coordinate bench of this Court has recorded that the Court is daily coming across such matters where people come out with certified copies of orders alleged to have been passed 25 to 40 years before by Consolidation Courts and start asserting that the order must be mutated. In most of the cases such certified copies are forged. In normal course of things if an order is passed by Consolidation Court in favour of a person then either it is implemented forthwith in normal course or he will immediately take steps for getting that mutated in the revenue records. In most of the cases such certified copies are forged. In normal course of things if an order is passed by Consolidation Court in favour of a person then either it is implemented forthwith in normal course or he will immediately take steps for getting that mutated in the revenue records. A wait of more than 12 years always raises a grave doubt regarding the genuineness of the order sought to be enforced. In most of such cases certified copies of non existent orders are manufactured after the loss/weeding out of original records. It is also the experience of the court that Rule 109-A is being utterly misused. It is not meant for rampant use. It cannot be invoked after notification under section 52 of the Act to enforce orders passed before the notification. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reply to the aforesaid legal submissions raised by the learned Standing Counsel. 6. The application filed by the petitioner under Rule 109 has been filed after more than 30 years since the alleged order dated 24.04.1993, a certified copy whereof has not been produced by the petitioner along with the application for execution of the order. The photocopy of the order dated 24.04.1993 filed alongwith the execution application is not admissible. The original record of the proceedings in the court of Consolidation Officer stands weeded out. In these circumstances, there is no method to verify the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim regarding order dated 24.04.1993 in absence of a certified copy of the order dated 24.04.1993 having been filed by the petitioner along with his application dated 07.11.2023. 7. Further, Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings ct, 1953 provides as follows:- “52. Close of consolidation operations. -(1) As soon as may be, after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-section (1) of Section 27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and the village or villages forming a part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations: Provided that the issue of the notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and record the cost of operations under this Act. (1-A) The notification issued under sub-section (1) shall be published also in a daily newspaper having circulation in the area and in such other manner as may be considered proper. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases of proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities, as may be prescribed and the consolidation operation shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed. * * *” 8. Rule 109-A of the Rules of 1954 provides as follows: - “109A. -(1) Orders passed in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 52 shall be given effect to by the consolidation authorities, authorised in this behalf under sub-section (2) of Section 42. In case there be no such authority the Assistant Collector, incharge of the sub-division, the Tahsildar, the Naib-Tahsildar, the Supervisor kanungo, and the Lekhpal of the area to which the case relates shall, respectively, perform the functions and discharge the duties of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the Consolidator and the Consolidation Lekhpal respectively for the purpose of giving effect to the orders aforesaid. (2) If for the purpose of giving effect to any order referred to in sub-rule (1) it becomes necessary to reallocate affected chaks, necessary orders may be passed by the 28 Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. (3) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, or the Tahsildar, as the case may be, may, within 15 days of the order passed under sub-rule (2), file an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, or the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division, as the case may be, who shall decide the appeal after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, which shall be final. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed.” 9. (4) In case delivery of possession becomes necessary as a result of orders passed under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, the provisions of Rules 55 and 56 shall, mutatis mutandis, be followed.” 9. A combined reading of Section 52 (2) of the Act of 1953 and Rule 109-A (2) of the Rules of 1954 makes it clear that only the orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases of proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the consolidation operations stand closed long ago. There is nothing on record to indicate that any writ petition was filed in this matter or any proceedings under the Act were pending on the date of notification under Section 52 (1) of the act of 1953. In these circumstances, the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be implemented long after closure of the consolidation operations. 10. When this Court is of the view that the order dated 24.04.1993 cannot be implemented, there is no occasion for this Court to give a direction for expeditious disposal of the application for implementation of the order filed after more than 30 years since passing of the order. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.