JUDGMENT :

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned orders dated 04.04.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) II, Varanasi - respondent no. 1 in Revision Nos. 575, 515/355/482/94386 of 1992 District Ghazipur as well as order dated 30.04.1992 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, District- Ghazipur in Case No. 36/31/157 under Section 33/39 U.P. L.R. Act, 1901.

3. The brief facts of the case are that disputed plots nos. are 513, 515 & 518, out of which plot nos. 513 & 518 were recorded in the name of the petitioners from 1360-Fasali in C.H. Form-41, and its old plot nos. were 544 and 533. The petitioners have annexed extract of Khatauni no. 1369- Fasali and C.H. Form 41 dated 21.08.1987 as Annexure No. 1.

4. During the consolidation Proceeding C.H Form No.-45 was prepared, in which petitioner's father was recorded as Sirdar, which is Annexure no. 2. On 15.10.1986 father of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 moved an application under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, praying therein for mutation of his name in respect of new plot nos. 515 and 518 deleting the name of the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 10.11.1964 alleged to have been passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in Suit No. 499 of 1790.

5. The petitioners raised an objection that application was moved after 26 years on the basis of forged orders, it was also objected that under Section 33/39, such application cannot be entertained and the application was barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. It has also been specifically objected that during the Consolidation, no case was proceeded between the parties about the land-in-dispute allotted to the petitioners. After making a detailed inquiry and inspection as well as after hearing the matter the concerned Naib Tehsildar submitted his report dated 26.10.1991 recommending rejection of the application to the respondent no. 2 – S.D.O.

6. The respondent no. 2, vide his order dated 30.40.1992 allowed the application dated 15.10.1986 directing the deletion of name of the petitioners from the land-in-dispute, which is annexed as Annexure 4.

7. The petitioners on 22.05.1992 filed a Revision No. 94 of 1992 - Soteem and others Vs. Ghar Bharan and others before respondent no. 1 – Upper Commission (Judicial-II) challenging the order dated 30.04.1992 passed by respondent no. 2. The memo of revision is annexed as Annexure No. 5. Respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 29.05.1992 stayed the impugned order dated 30.04.1992 passed by respondent no. 2, which is Annexure no. 6. The respondent no. 1, vide his order dated 04.04.2006 dismissed the Revision, which is annexed at Annexure no. 7. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have passed the orders in arbitrary manner without giving any finding in respect of fraud played by the respondents, which is against the set principle of law. The Court below failed to consider that no explanation, about inordinate delay of 26 years have been given by the respondents for moving the application for mutation and failed to consider the long standing entry of revenue record. The respondent no. 2 without any basis recorded perverse finding that after the death of Jodhi his heirs Murali and others are in possession over the plot-in-dispute. The Revisional Court did not record any finding in respect of possession. The certified copy of the order dated 10.11.1964 was never produced before the court below by the respondents and the same is not available in record room as per the office report. The court below illegally discarded the report of Naib Tehsildar in respect of Mutation, in which he has specifically proposed that after such delay no such application can be allowed. The petitioners are still in possession over the land-in-dispute and their names are running recorded even since the time of their ancestors. The p