The existence of a right and manifest injustice arising from any invasion on such a right are twin conditions precedent for successfully invoking the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) IN the proceedings before Consolidation Authorities, giving rise to instant writ petition, the petitioners traced the source of their title or right in respect of disputed land to be entries in relevant record, prepared under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in favour of Shri Banshi, father of petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and grand-father of petitioner No. 5. The entries were shown to have been made in pursuance of orders dt. 17-3-1971, 15-3-1972, 9-9-1972 and 18-9-1972 purported to have been passed in consolidation cases Nos. 1021, 1358, 1378 and 1648 respectively. Prior to year 1971 the land id dispute had been recorded as BANJAR belonging to concerned Gaon Sabha.

( 2 ) ASSISTANT Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Allahabad, the respondent No. 2, before whom the proceedings had been initiated, found it as a fact that, except case No. 1021, none of the aforesaid cases existed and the orders alleged to have been passed therein were non-existent. About case No. 1021 and the order dt. 17-3-1971 it was found that they did not relate to the disputed land. The respondent No. 2, therefore, concluded that entries were fictitious, forged and fraudulent. He further found that the entries were got made with the connivance of staff for the purposes of grabing land of Gaon Sabha and such entries could bestow no right or title upon any body. Accordingly, the respondent No. 2 passed an order dt. 18th Jan. , 1986 directing requisite rectification.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order dt. 18-1-1986 the petitioners went up in revision before District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, the respondent No. 1, who after hearing the learned counsel of the parties and carefully going through the entire relevant facts available on record, agreed with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the respondent No. 2, affirmed his order and dismissed the revision of the petitioners by means of his judgement and order dt. 18-6-1987.

( 4 ) THE two judgements and orders of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely 18th June, 1987 and 18th Jan. , 1986, are under challenge in this petition.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 1 violated the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he denied opportunity of hearing to the petitioners; that the respondent No. 2 passed the order dt. 18-1-1986 in utter disregard and violation of the orders dt. 22-1-1986 and 24-1-1986, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and this Court respectively; that the proceedings before the respondent No. 2 were not initiated by a person Competent to do so under para 128 of Gaon Samaj Manual; that the proceedings before respondents Nos. 2 and 1 were barred by limitation as they were commenced after about 15 years from the respective date of the orders impugned therein; and finally that the proceedings were barred by the principles of res judicata because the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha had agitated the matter earlier also wherein he had compromised the issue and in this view of the matter proceedings, giving rise to this petition, were not maintainable.

( 6 ) IT is not necessary to adjudicate upon the various submissions made on behalf of the petitioners as the petition deserves dismissal simply on the ground that the petitioners have not been able to prove the existence of any right qua disputed land muchless violation of the right resulting in manifest injustice. Existence of a right and manifest injustice arising from any invasion on such a right are twin conditions precedent for successfully invoking the jurisdiction of a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

( 7 ) THE entries in the record, which were the substratum of the alleged claim of the petitioners in respect of the land in question, having been conclusively found by the Consolidation Authorities to be fictitious, forged and fraudulent the alleged rights of the petitioners vanish. In the absence of any right the question of any viol