The main legal point established in the judgment is that fictitious and fraudulently obtained entries in revenue records do not confer any right or title, and the party responsible for such entries cannot seek relief from the court.

Shiv Charan Sharma, J.

The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the opposite party No. 2 on dated 9.4.1992. Prayer has also been made for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 3 not to initiate proceedings u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:

2. The village Pradhan of Lolepur moved an application before the Chief Revenue Officer, Sultanpur on dated 2.4.1992 alleging that the disputed land belongs to Gram Sabha and this land has wrongly been entered in the name of the Petitioner and the same may be expunged. On this application opposite party No. 2 conducted an inquiry in the matter. And as a result of inquiry opposite party No. 2 arrived at the conclusion that fictitious entry has been made in the name of Petitioner from 1384F-1393F on the basis of forged and fraudulent order allegedly passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sultanpur. The opposite party No. 2 also ordered on 9.4.1992 that action should be taken u/s 33/39 of the Land Revenue Act and Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Sadar on the basis of this order will initiate proceedings under the said provision and expunge the name of the Petitioner. The name of the Petitioner was recorded in the revenue papers according to Rule 23 of the Land Revenue Manual by Lekhpal under Rule 109 of U. P. C. H. Rules. It has also been provided in the Act that after de-notification of the village u/s 52 of the C. H. Act, if the orders passed during consolidation operation not complied with then the same may be executed under Rule 109 of the C.H. Rules. Hence, under these rules Petitioner moved an application to Tehsildar for incorporating his name in the revenue records according to the orders of the consolidation authorities. And thereafter by the order of the Tahsildar, the name of the Petitioner was entered in revenue records under Rule 109 of the C. H. Rules and after the order of the Tahsildar, the Lekhpal made entry in the record. There is no provision in the Land Revenue Act to initiate any proceedings u/s 33/93 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to expunge the name of a person from the khatauni. The order of the Revenue Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 33/39 for expunging the name of the Petitioner from the khatauni is illegal and without jurisdiction and this Act is also prejudicial and mala fide and hence in these circumstances, it is just and proper that the jurisdiction of this Court be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Mohd. Shabbir, Mohd. Salim and other opposite parties filed counter-affidavit and the allegations made in the petition have been specifically disputed. It has further been alleged that the name of Petitioner Mushtaq Ahmad had already been entered in the revenue records on the basis of fictitious and forged entries without any substance. Mohd. Aleem and Ors. moved an application on 31.3.1992 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Sultanpur for conducting an inquiry about the forged and fictitious entries in the revenue record. It was alleged by the opposite parties that the disputed land belonged to the Gaon Sabha recorded as Banjar, Tank and Drainage. And the Petitioner manipulated the entry in his name on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. The entire land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha as non-agricultural land. This plot No. 305 measuring 2 biswa and plot No. 485 measuring 12 dhur, well of the ancestors of Mohd. Shabbir was existing and subsequently, Mohd. Shabbir installed tube-well and also got electric connection since February, 1991. The Village Pradhan also moved an application for inquiry as huge property of the Gaon Sabha has been acquired by the Petitioner on the basis of fictitious entry. And it was found in inquiry that on the basis of forged signature of Tahsildar, the Petitioner