Raj Narain … v. State of U.P. Thru Collector/D.m. Lucknow and others

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 21.11.2014 abd 12.12.2005 passed by opposite party Nos.2

& 3 contained as Annexure Nos.4 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the State of U.P. filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called) the Act, before the Sub Divisional Officer on the allegations that plot nos.96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106 and 107 were recorded as "Usar" in revenue records and the opposite parties no.1 to 4 happens to be the owner of the said plots and in consolidation proceedings, the name of Raj Narain Singh (petitioner) was recorded in CH Form 45, in pursuance to the order dated 17.1.1968 passed by the Consolidation 2 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 Officer. The suit filed by the opposite party no.4 was not filed in accordance with the provisions of para 128 and 129 of U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual was not maintainable and further the suit under section 229-B of the Act could not be filed on behalf of the State and the Gaon Sabha.

4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement, raising a plea that the suit was not maintainable and the trial court could not proceed. After framing 6 issues, issues no.2 to 5 regarding maintainability of the suit were decided as preliminary issues, holding that the provisions appearing in U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act and the mutation made in pursuance to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, which was not incorporated in khatauni prepared after finalization of the consolidation records i.e. CH Form 45 are summary in nature, hence the suit is maintainable.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, deciding issues aforementioned preliminary issues, the petitioner filed a revision under section 333 of the Act, which was dismissed as not maintainable, even without considering the submissions made by the petitioner that the suit filed at the instance of the State and Gaon Sabha under section 229- B was not maintainable and further no relief was prayed for ejectment as contemplated by section 209 of the Act and a writ petition no.1128/2002 filed by the State is pending and since no proceedings regarding determination of title were filed before the consolidation authorities, the suit is not barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

6. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party no.2, while dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was affirmed by the opposite party no.2 by dismissing the revision on the ground that the same has been filed against an interim order, ignoring the fact that the trial court had decided issues as preliminary issues. Thus, the order 3 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 passed is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside as the entries made in CH Form 45 in the name of the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 17.01.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer have not challenged and the subsequent omission of the name of the petitioner, while preparing "Navin Khatauni" by the Lekhpal was only a clerical error, which had already been corrected, in pursuance to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, who made a reference to the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.3.1999 filed as annexure no.2 in writ petition no.1001128/2000 (State of U.P. & another versus Raj Narain Singh & another) and the review petition filed by the State was also dismissed vide order dated 20.08.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, which has been filed as annexure no.1 to the aforesaid writ petition.

7. He submitted that the incorrect entries made while preparing "Navin Khatauni" have been corrected in proceedings under section 33/39 initiated by the petitioner and his name has been ordered to be recorded. Thus, the order dated 12.12.2005 (annexure no.3) passed by the opposite party no.3, which was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, while dismissing the revision, vide order dated

21.11.2014 (annexure no.4) deserves to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and the same are just and valid. The writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

11. This writ petition challenges the orders dated 12.12.2005 and

21.11.2014 (Annexures-3 and 4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner respectively, by which the revision 4 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 against certain proceedings was dismissed and the trial court’s direction on maintainability was affirmed. The controversy concerns the title and recording of plot nos. 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106 and 107 which were recorded as “Usar” in revenue records and later shown in CH Forms as having the name of the petitioner purportedly by operation of an order dated 17.01.1968 of the Consolidation Officer (Case No. 101/3021).

12. The petition raises substantial questions of law and fact: (i) whether an authentic order of the Consolidation Officer dated

17.01.1968 ever existed; (ii) whether entries in CH Form 45/CH Form 41 showing the petitioner’s name are genuine or have been manipulated after the space was struck down in red ink; (iii) whether the omission while preparing the Navin Khatauni was a mere clerical error susceptible of correction under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or whether the entries are tainted by forgery; and (iv) whether the subordinate revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue correctly exercised jurisdiction and law when they treated the matter as clerical correction and refused appropriate scrutiny.

13. On the material on record the following critical points emerge: (a) The Sub-Divisional Officer recorded contemporaneous doubts about the Amaldaramad in CH Form 45: the amaldaramad appears to have been cut with red ink and overwritten, and the signatures/entries were not satisfactorily explained. Such erasures/overwrites, in the view of the SDO, cast a real doubt on the authenticity of any purported order dated 17.01.1968. (b) The petitioner and the State have not produced the original consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021) from the office of the Consolidation Officer to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that an order of 5 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015

17.01.1968 was actually passed and lawfully implemented. The absence of original primary records on such a central question is a material lacuna. (c) The Board of Revenue’s acceptance of the Additional Commissioner’s reference was premised on the view that the mistake was clerical and that CH Forms 41/45 contained entries in the petitioner’s name as a result of the consolidation order. The Board, however, did not adequately grapple with the SDO’s specific finding about the visible cutting/overwriting and the requirement of tracing the provenance of entries from original consolidation proceedings. (d) Where a revenue document shows signs of alteration (red-ink strikings, subsequent insertions), the correct course is to require production of the primary consolidation records and, if necessary, to direct an independent verification (summoning Record-Room bundles, calling for the original CH Forms and consolidation file, or directing an inquiry). Merely treating such disputed entries as clerical corrections, without fuller inquiry, is inadequate.

14. While High Court ordinarily refrains from re-appreciating concurrent findings of fact recorded by revenue courts, interference is justified where there is material illegality, failure to consider relevant material, perversity, or where a factual record essential for adjudication has not been placed before the court below and which, if produced, could vitiate the conclusion reached. In revenue matters affecting title, the court must ensure that the process adopted by revenue authorities meets standards of reasoned decision making and that contested documentary evidence is adequately tested.

15. The SDO’s doubt about the amaldaramad and visible cutting with red ink was a material fact which the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue ought to have examined by directing production of the 6 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021) and the original CH Forms from the Record Room. The Board’s statement that CH Forms 41 and 45 were available and therefore the entry could be treated as genuine is insufficiently reasoned in the absence of a documented chain of custody or explanation for the red-ink cancellation and subsequent insertions.

16. The petitioner (and the State) had the burden to produce primary records to establish that a valid consolidation order dated 17.01.1968 existed and was lawfully implemented. The failure to produce such records, coupled with visible signs of alteration in CH Form 45, creates an unresolved doubt which cannot be resolved in favour of recording substantive rights by treating the matter as a mere clerical omission.

17. The Additional Commissioner’s dismissal of the revision as not maintainable ignored the substance of the objection — namely, that the entries were doubtful and required proper investigation. The Board of Revenue’s brief acceptance of the reference as clerical correction, without ordering a forensic verification of the Record Room materials, rendered the exercise of jurisdiction deficient.

18. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand. The appropriate remedial course is to set aside the orders under challenge and to remit the matter to the competent revenue authority with clear directions to conduct a fresh, reasoned and evidence-based inquiry, as follows: (a) The orders dated 12.12.2005 and 21.11.2014 are quashed. (b) The Additional Commissioner / Sub-Divisional Officer (as appropriate) shall direct production from the Record Room of the original consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021), the original CH Forms (CH Form 41 and CH Form 45), and any consolidation proceedings or related bundles relevant to the alleged order dated 17.01.1968. If the 7 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 original consolidation order cannot be found, or if the CH Forms show alterations for which no satisfactory, contemporaneous explanation is offered, the authority shall treat the entries with caution and determine whether the entries were legitimately made pursuant to a valid order or are products of subsequent insertion/forgery. (c) The authority shall afford opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, record reasons in writing for every material finding, and make factual findings on: existence/authenticity of the Consolidation Officer’s order dated 17.01.1968; the provenance of entries in CH Forms; whether omission in Navin Khatauni was clerical; and whether any entries should be struck off or corrected. (d) The authority may also, if necessary, refer any suspected forgery to the appropriate criminal forum for investigation, without prejudice to the civil rights of parties, if prima facie evidence of tampering is found. (e) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, subject to reasonable adjournments for production of original records.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.2005 and 21.11.2014 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent revenue authority for fresh inquiry and decision in accordance with the directions set out herein.

20. No order as to costs. November 14, 2025 Adarsh K Singh (Irshad Ali,J.) ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

& 3 contained as Annexure Nos.4 & 3 respectively to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the State of U.P. filed a suit under section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called) the Act, before the Sub Divisional Officer on the allegations that plot nos.96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106 and 107 were recorded as "Usar" in revenue records and the opposite parties no.1 to 4 happens to be the owner of the said plots and in consolidation proceedings, the name of Raj Narain Singh (petitioner) was recorded in CH Form 45, in pursuance to the order dated 17.1.1968 passed by the Consolidation 2 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 Officer. The suit filed by the opposite party no.4 was not filed in accordance with the provisions of para 128 and 129 of U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual was not maintainable and further the suit under section 229-B of the Act could not be filed on behalf of the State and the Gaon Sabha.

4. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement, raising a plea that the suit was not maintainable and the trial court could not proceed. After framing 6 issues, issues no.2 to 5 regarding maintainability of the suit were decided as preliminary issues, holding that the provisions appearing in U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act and the mutation made in pursuance to the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, which was not incorporated in khatauni prepared after finalization of the consolidation records i.e. CH Form 45 are summary in nature, hence the suit is maintainable.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, deciding issues aforementioned preliminary issues, the petitioner filed a revision under section 333 of the Act, which was dismissed as not maintainable, even without considering the submissions made by the petitioner that the suit filed at the instance of the State and Gaon Sabha under section 229- B was not maintainable and further no relief was prayed for ejectment as contemplated by section 209 of the Act and a writ petition no.1128/2002 filed by the State is pending and since no proceedings regarding determination of title were filed before the consolidation authorities, the suit is not barred by section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

6. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that opposite party no.2, while dismissing the revision filed against the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was affirmed by the opposite party no.2 by dismissing the revision on the ground that the same has been filed against an interim order, ignoring the fact that the trial court had decided issues as preliminary issues. Thus, the order 3 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 passed is not only illegal but also without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside as the entries made in CH Form 45 in the name of the petitioner, in pursuance to the order dated 17.01.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer have not challenged and the subsequent omission of the name of the petitioner, while preparing "Navin Khatauni" by the Lekhpal was only a clerical error, which had already been corrected, in pursuance to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, who made a reference to the Board of Revenue, which was accepted by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 18.3.1999 filed as annexure no.2 in writ petition no.1001128/2000 (State of U.P. & another versus Raj Narain Singh & another) and the review petition filed by the State was also dismissed vide order dated 20.08.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, which has been filed as annexure no.1 to the aforesaid writ petition.

7. He submitted that the incorrect entries made while preparing "Navin Khatauni" have been corrected in proceedings under section 33/39 initiated by the petitioner and his name has been ordered to be recorded. Thus, the order dated 12.12.2005 (annexure no.3) passed by the opposite party no.3, which was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner, while dismissing the revision, vide order dated

21.11.2014 (annexure no.4) deserves to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders and the same are just and valid. The writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

11. This writ petition challenges the orders dated 12.12.2005 and

21.11.2014 (Annexures-3 and 4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner respectively, by which the revision 4 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 against certain proceedings was dismissed and the trial court’s direction on maintainability was affirmed. The controversy concerns the title and recording of plot nos. 96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106 and 107 which were recorded as “Usar” in revenue records and later shown in CH Forms as having the name of the petitioner purportedly by operation of an order dated 17.01.1968 of the Consolidation Officer (Case No. 101/3021).

12. The petition raises substantial questions of law and fact: (i) whether an authentic order of the Consolidation Officer dated

17.01.1968 ever existed; (ii) whether entries in CH Form 45/CH Form 41 showing the petitioner’s name are genuine or have been manipulated after the space was struck down in red ink; (iii) whether the omission while preparing the Navin Khatauni was a mere clerical error susceptible of correction under Sections 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or whether the entries are tainted by forgery; and (iv) whether the subordinate revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue correctly exercised jurisdiction and law when they treated the matter as clerical correction and refused appropriate scrutiny.

13. On the material on record the following critical points emerge: (a) The Sub-Divisional Officer recorded contemporaneous doubts about the Amaldaramad in CH Form 45: the amaldaramad appears to have been cut with red ink and overwritten, and the signatures/entries were not satisfactorily explained. Such erasures/overwrites, in the view of the SDO, cast a real doubt on the authenticity of any purported order dated 17.01.1968. (b) The petitioner and the State have not produced the original consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021) from the office of the Consolidation Officer to demonstrate, beyond doubt, that an order of 5 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015

17.01.1968 was actually passed and lawfully implemented. The absence of original primary records on such a central question is a material lacuna. (c) The Board of Revenue’s acceptance of the Additional Commissioner’s reference was premised on the view that the mistake was clerical and that CH Forms 41/45 contained entries in the petitioner’s name as a result of the consolidation order. The Board, however, did not adequately grapple with the SDO’s specific finding about the visible cutting/overwriting and the requirement of tracing the provenance of entries from original consolidation proceedings. (d) Where a revenue document shows signs of alteration (red-ink strikings, subsequent insertions), the correct course is to require production of the primary consolidation records and, if necessary, to direct an independent verification (summoning Record-Room bundles, calling for the original CH Forms and consolidation file, or directing an inquiry). Merely treating such disputed entries as clerical corrections, without fuller inquiry, is inadequate.

14. While High Court ordinarily refrains from re-appreciating concurrent findings of fact recorded by revenue courts, interference is justified where there is material illegality, failure to consider relevant material, perversity, or where a factual record essential for adjudication has not been placed before the court below and which, if produced, could vitiate the conclusion reached. In revenue matters affecting title, the court must ensure that the process adopted by revenue authorities meets standards of reasoned decision making and that contested documentary evidence is adequately tested.

15. The SDO’s doubt about the amaldaramad and visible cutting with red ink was a material fact which the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue ought to have examined by directing production of the 6 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021) and the original CH Forms from the Record Room. The Board’s statement that CH Forms 41 and 45 were available and therefore the entry could be treated as genuine is insufficiently reasoned in the absence of a documented chain of custody or explanation for the red-ink cancellation and subsequent insertions.

16. The petitioner (and the State) had the burden to produce primary records to establish that a valid consolidation order dated 17.01.1968 existed and was lawfully implemented. The failure to produce such records, coupled with visible signs of alteration in CH Form 45, creates an unresolved doubt which cannot be resolved in favour of recording substantive rights by treating the matter as a mere clerical omission.

17. The Additional Commissioner’s dismissal of the revision as not maintainable ignored the substance of the objection — namely, that the entries were doubtful and required proper investigation. The Board of Revenue’s brief acceptance of the reference as clerical correction, without ordering a forensic verification of the Record Room materials, rendered the exercise of jurisdiction deficient.

18. In view of the above, the impugned orders cannot be allowed to stand. The appropriate remedial course is to set aside the orders under challenge and to remit the matter to the competent revenue authority with clear directions to conduct a fresh, reasoned and evidence-based inquiry, as follows: (a) The orders dated 12.12.2005 and 21.11.2014 are quashed. (b) The Additional Commissioner / Sub-Divisional Officer (as appropriate) shall direct production from the Record Room of the original consolidation file (Case No. 101/3021), the original CH Forms (CH Form 41 and CH Form 45), and any consolidation proceedings or related bundles relevant to the alleged order dated 17.01.1968. If the 7 WRIC No. - 1000138 of 2015 original consolidation order cannot be found, or if the CH Forms show alterations for which no satisfactory, contemporaneous explanation is offered, the authority shall treat the entries with caution and determine whether the entries were legitimately made pursuant to a valid order or are products of subsequent insertion/forgery. (c) The authority shall afford opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, record reasons in writing for every material finding, and make factual findings on: existence/authenticity of the Consolidation Officer’s order dated 17.01.1968; the provenance of entries in CH Forms; whether omission in Navin Khatauni was clerical; and whether any entries should be struck off or corrected. (d) The authority may also, if necessary, refer any suspected forgery to the appropriate criminal forum for investigation, without prejudice to the civil rights of parties, if prima facie evidence of tampering is found. (e) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, subject to reasonable adjournments for production of original records.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.2005 and 21.11.2014 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the competent revenue authority for fresh inquiry and decision in accordance with the directions set out herein.

20. No order as to costs. November 14, 2025 Adarsh K Singh (Irshad Ali,J.) ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench