JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at admission stage.

2. Instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in brevity 'D.D.C.') (respondent No. 1) and the order dated 29.7.2019 (Annexure-2) passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation (in brevity 'S.O.C.') (respondent No. 2).

3. Facts giving rise to present writ petition is that Manager Singh (predecessor in interest of the petitioner) has moved an application under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') claiming his right and title over the property in question, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 10.10.1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer (in brevity 'C.O.') on the basis of alleged compromise, which took place on the same day i.e. 10.10.1973 between Manager Singh (predecessor in interest of the petitioner) and Ram Parikhan (predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 3). Consequent to the order dated 10.10.1973, name of Manger Singh was ordered to be recorded in the revenue record in place of Ram Parikhan, whose name was ordered to be expunged. At a very belated stage, Ram Parikhan has moved a restoration application dated 27.12.1986 (Annexure-4) beseeching recall of the order dated 10.10.1973 on the ground of fraud. During pendency of the restoration application, Ram Parikhan has moved an application for expert opinion qua genuineness of thumb impression alleged to have been made by him. The matter travelled upto to the D.D.C. who has remitted the matter before the C.O. vide order dated 9.6.1988 with a direction that it should be decided afresh after summoning the records of the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. Order dated 9.6.1988 was assailed by Manager Singh in Writ B No. 15609 of 1988, which was dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2010 (Annexure-7). In pursuance of the order dated 9.6.1988, the C.O. has reconsidered the matter and rejected the restoration application filed on behalf of Ram Parikhan on the ground that the Forensic Expert could not prove his report. Order passed by the C.O. was reversed by the S.O.C. vide its order dated 29.7.2019 (Annexure-2), and the matter was remitted before the C.O. to examine thumb impression of Ram Parikhan after summoning the record of the Revisional Court, as directed by order dated 9.6.1988, and decide it afresh. The D.D.C. has affirmed the order of S.O.C. by dismissing the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner vide its order dated 31.12.2020 (Annexure-1), which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the C.O. has considered the opinion of the Forensic Expert and assigned cogent reason in discarding the case of Ram Parikhan. The S.O.C. while reversing the order of the C.O. has not reversed the findings given by him, but has illegally shifted burden of proof upon the petitioner to prove genuineness of the thumb impression. The S.O.C. and the D.D.C. have erred in drawing adverse inference against the petitioner citing delay in initiation of proceeding under Rule 109 A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Rules') for implementation of order dated 10.10.1973 passed by the C.O. While doing so, they have lost sight of the factor that it is the utmost solemn duty of the consolidation authorities to give effect of the order on the revenue record and for this kind of inaction on their part, the petitioner cannot be castigated. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 4.10.2010, Hon'ble High Court has directed the Court concerned