Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Case has been called out in the revised list.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

4. The present writ petition has been filed praying for writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 30.12.2000, 28.12.1999 and 18.2.1995 passed by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively.

5. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 relates to plot No. 445 (area 2 bigha and 10 dhur) in Khata No. 136 situated in village Basahi, Tehsil Karchhana, District Allahabad.

6. The contention of petitioner in the writ petition is that on 1.8.1983, respondent No. 4 mortgaged the disputed plot in favour of the petitioner as a security for Rs. 20,000/- advanced by the petitioner to respondent No. 4 and transferred possession of the disputed plot to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that by virtue of Section 164 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, the said transfer shall be deemed to be a sale and the petitioner became bhumidhar of the same entitling him to get his name recorded in the revenue records relating to the disputed plot. During the consolidation operations held in the village, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) before respondent No. 3 praying that the name of respondent No. 4 may be expunged from the revenue records and in his place the petitioner may be recorded as bhumidhar of the said plot. The said application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 2.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 4 subsequently filed an application praying that the order dated 2.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 3 may be recalled. On the said application, case No. 179 under Section 12 of the Act was registered in the Court of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 18.2.1995 allowed the said application setting aside the order dated 2.6.1986 allegedly passed earlier. Against the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 which was registered as appeal No. 218 and respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 28.12.1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The order passed by respondent No. 2 was challenged by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 through revision No. 1542/124 registered under Section 48 of the Act. Respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 30.12.2000 dismissed the said revision. It is the aforesaid orders that are under challenge in this writ petition.

7. In the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that after the order dated 2.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 3, records relating to the case were misplaced as a result of which the original papers of the petitioner were also misplaced. It has been further stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that respondent No. 3 made no efforts to reconstruct the records and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have acted illegally by passing an order on the application filed by respondent No. 4 without reconstructing the records. The petitioner has also filed an application (Civil Misc. Application No. 30705 of 2006) under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bringing on record, as Annexure 1, the alleged order dated 2.6.1986 passed by respondent No. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that no orders should have been passed on the application filed by respondent No. 4 (instituting case No. 179) without reconstructing the records of the case and the order of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are based on surmises so far as they are based on their findings that the alleged order dated 2.6.1986 purporting to be passed by the Consolidation Officer was a forged and fabricated document. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that from the records annexed with Civil Misc. Application No. 30705 of 2006