Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2005 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Gautambudh Nagar in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act as also the order dated 28.11.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut Region, Meerut rejecting his revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Patta was executed in favour of the petitioner on 1.4.1984 relating to Khasra Nos. 1847 and 1848 total area 0.544 and 0.721 hectare, which was duly approved by the Sub-Division Magistrate, Sadar, Gautambudh Nagar and possession was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter recorded in the revenue records accordingly. He states that the Tehsildar gave a report regarding the land in question by stating that the entry in the revenue record is forged. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the entry in the revenue record was illegally expunged by virtue of the incorrect report dated 26.12.2001 given by the Tehsildar. He states that both the authorities have not taken into account the fact that the petitioner had produced the patta and the revenue entries and there was no reason for the authority to hold that the patta was forged or that the revenue entries were illegal. He states that in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act the question of patta cannot be decided and by holding that the patta is forged, the authorities have committed a jurisdictional error. He has also submitted that if the patta of the petitioner was required to be cancelled the recourse could have taken under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but the same could not have been done under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. For the aforesaid reason, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, at the outset from a perusal of the impugned orders, the question of title has not been decided in the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, the submission, therefore, is quite misplaced. A perusal of the orders indicates that in mutation proceedings the authority has recorded that the petitioner did not produce the original patta and the photostat copy of the patta being secondary evidence could not be entertained. It has also recorded that the allotment resolution dated 14.10.1983 was also not produced in original. It is not denied by the petitioner that he did not produce the original patta or resolution before any of the authorities.

5. The impugned order has found that the entry in the revenue record appears to be subsequently made and therefore, in the absence of patta the entries appear to be forged. Such view taken in the proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act are prima facie and it has been mentioned in the impugned order that prima facie the entry appears to be forged. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it has not cancelled the patta as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has expunged the entry on prima facie satisfaction that the entry was forged and the petitioner did not produce the patta. Consequently, when the petitioner’s case was that the patta was granted after resolution and approval of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which he did not establish and respondents on the basis of report of the Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act found the same to be forged and fictitious it was open for the petitioner to claim his right in appropriate proceedings available to him in law.

6. It is not disputed that title proceedings cannot be decided under Section 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act, only clerical