Chandrajeet Ram vs State of U.P. and Another

S.U. Khan, J.—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. 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 nonexistent orders are manufactured after the loss/weeding out of original records.

In the instant case, the fantastic argument of the petitioner is that on 21.7.1973 some order was passed by the consolidation court in his favour, however, due to negligence) of consolidation authorities the said order of 1973 was'' not mutated in the revenue records. For the said purpose for the first time petitioner filed application on 2.2.2008, i.e., exactly after 35 years. If the petitioner had waited for one more year, limitation to file suit for recovery of possession would have expired thrice. In such matters first information report must be lodged against such claimants for manufacturing the documents otherwise this menace would not be checked. However, the Court is not issuing any particular direction in respect of the petitioner of this writ petition.. The consolidation authorities/Courts and other revenue authorities/Courts of each district particularly Collector should be vigilant in future.

It is also the experience of the Court that Rule 109A is being utterly mis-used. It is not meant for rampant use. It cannot be invoked after notification u/s 52 of the Act to enforce orders passed before the notification.

During dictation of this judgment learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as not pressed. However, the Court is not inclined to grant that prayer.

The Court is not at all convinced that any order was passed in favour of petitioner on 21.7.1973 hence this writ petition is dismissed.

Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel.