Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue ... vs Sri Raj Narain Singh on 14 November, 2025
Author: Irshad Ali
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on: 04.09.2025 Delivered on: 14.11.2025 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73087 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1001128 of 2000 State of U.P. Through Secretary Revenue Department Lucknow ..Petitioner(s) Versus Sri Raj Narain Singh ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : C.S.C., Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.s.chauhan, Deepika Srivastava, Dilip Kumar Pandey, Mamta Singh, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Prashant Jaiswal, R.n.gupta Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.
1. Heard learned Additional CSC for the petitioner - State and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 20.08.1999 and 18.03.1999 passed by Board of Revenue contained as Annexure Nos.1 &2 to the writ petition.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no.1 moved an application under section 33/39 of U.P.Land Revenue Act for correction of the records in respect to plot nos.96, 97, 98, 100, 105, 106 and 107 on the basis of an order dated 17.1.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer in case no. 101/3021.
4. Sub Divisional Officer registered the said application as case no.28/1994 and called upon report from the Tehsildar, which was a submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Bijnore 1.10.1994 to on the Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow (annexure no.5), stating therein that in pursuance to the order dated 17.1.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the said plots were recorded in the name of Raj Narain Singh (opposite party no.1) as Sirdar and the said order was given effect to in CH Form 45, but while preparing the Khatauni, Lekhpal omitted to endorse the aforesaid order. Raj Narain Singh is in possession and the possession was affirmed from the statement of Ram Swaroop and Laik Ahmad.
5. Sub Divisional Officer merely on suspicion dismissed the application, vide order dated 30.5.1995 (annexure no.6). Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.1995 (annexure no.6), Raj Narain Singh (opposite party no.1) filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who after affording an opportunity to the parties concerned, made a reference vide order dated 22.11.1995 to the Board of Revenue for accepting the same, by allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow.
6. The Board of Revenue accepted the reference vide order dated 18.3.1999 (annexure no.2), by observing that in case as has been observed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the entry in CH Form 45 is fake and records are available in Record Room, the same could have been summoned in order to ascertain the said fact. The mistake appears to be clerical, thereby the reference was accepted and the order dated 30.5.1995 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed a review petition (annexure no.8), which was rejected vide order dated 20.8.1999 (annexure no.1). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners filed the above noted writ petition.
8. The opposite party no.1 submits that while rejecting the review petition vide order dated 20.8.1999, the Learned Member, Board of Revenue had observed that CH Form 45 containing the entry of the order dated 17.1.1968 passed by the Consolidation Officer was issued from the Record Room and if any entry has been left by the consolidation authorities, the said entry can be corrected under section 33/30 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act. The Board of Revenue, while accepting the reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow had also observed that the entry of the name of Raj Narain Singh in CH Form 45 was inadvertently by clerical mistake and the said entry has not been recorded in revenue records and when the name of the revisionist (opposite party no.1) is recorded in CH Forms 41 and 45 and those records are available in Record Room, the said entry cannot be said to be a fake entry as the certified copies of CH Form 41 and 45 have been obtained.
9. Both Board of Revenue, while accepting the reference and the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow, while making the reference have considered the evidence on record and have recorded a specific finding of fact that due to some inadvertence, the entries made in CH Form were not incorporated in the khatauni prepared and the said mistake is clerical mistake, thereby passed an order for correction of the revenue records.
10. Submission of learned Additional CSC is that the Sub Divisional Magistrate specifically recorded a finding that the Amaldaramad of order dated 17.1.1968 appears to be doubtful inas-much as the amaldaramad made was cut of by red ink and thereafter signatures have also been made and therefore, there was no effect of Amaldaramad at all and the respondent, therefore, could not claim any right on the basis of alleged C.H.Form-45.
11. He further submitted that it was clearly proved that no order dated 17.01.1968 was made by the Consolidation Officer and therefore, it was necessary on the part of the respondent no.1 to prove the statement by producing the relevant record that the case was decided by the Consolidation Officer on 17.1.1968.
12. He next submitted that the respondent must have been in the possession of the record in respect of the case no. 101/3021 decided on 17.1.1968 and the opposite party no.1 should have produced those documents before the Sub Divisional Magistrate but he did not do so, therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate rightly concluded that the opposite party no.1 could not prove that cutting of amaldaramad was illegal or wrong.
13. He submitted that in subsequent Khataunies the property in question continued to be recorded as 'Usar' belonging to the State but after the decision by the Board of Revenue the name of the opposite party no.1 was recorded in the revenue records.
14. He next submitted that the Additional Commissioner wrongly recorded a finding that the Consolidation Officer through the order dated 17.01.1968 had directed recording of name of the opposite party no.1. In CH Forms 41 and 45 the property continued to be recorded as 'Usar' and the amaldaremad which appears to have been done was cut down by red ink, therefore, the reference made by the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue was not justified.
15. He submitted that the Additional Commissioner wrongly recorded a finding that the matter stood decided by the Consolidation Officer because of the fact that on a questionaire being moved to this effect before the Court of Consolidation Officer it was reported that no such case No. 101/3021 was ever decided by the Consolidation Officer, therefore, the finding of the Additional Commissioner was bad and purverse and was without any foundation to support.
16. He therefore submitted that in any view of the matter the judgment and order of the Reference Court cannot be sustained and maintained. The Board of Revenue wrongly recorded that the name of opposite party no.1 was recorded in CH Forms 11 and 45 because of the fact that it was on the record that the property in question continues to be recorded as 'Usar' in CH Forms 41 and 45 and the Amaldaramad as shown in the CH Form 45 was struck down, therefore, the same could not have any affect of the entry and therefore, the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue accepting the reference cannot be sustained and maintained.
17. He lastly submitted that in any view of the matter the order of the Board of Revenue accepting the reference cannot stand scrutiny by this Hon'ble Court inasmuch as admittedly there was erasing in the revenue records and the opposite party no.1 has miserably failed to substantiate the decision of the revenue court by any cogent reason. The Board of Revenue wrongly rejected the review petition only on the ground that CH Form duly issued by the Record Room had the entry of the name of the petitioner but it lost sight of the fact that in CH Form 45 whatever blank space is left the same is marked by red lines so as to avoid making of the entries and therefore, the making of the entries after its cutting down by red ink was unjustified and was forged with ulterior motive.
18. On the other hand, submission of learned Senior Advocate for the respondent is that the opposite party no.1 submits that the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, while accepting the reference (annexure no.2) as well as the order dated 20.8.1999 (annexure no.1), dismissing the review are just and proper and no error muchless jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the petitioners so as to call for any interference in exercise of power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 01.10.1994 and the certified copies of CH Forms 41 and 45 clearly refer to the order of the Consolidation Officer and record the name of Raj Narain Singh as Sirdar. These documents were verified from the Record Room, a fact not specifically rebutted by the petitioners.
20. The Board of Revenue as well as the Additional Commissioner have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the omission in the Khatauni was clerical in nature. Such findings, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction.
21. It is well settled that in proceedings under Article 226 Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority over orders of the revenue courts. When findings of fact are based on relevant material and supported by evidence, this Court will not reappraise such evidence merely because another view is possible.
22. The mere cutting in red ink or overwriting, without any conclusive proof of forgery, cannot nullify a verified entry made pursuant to an existing order. The Board of Revenue rightly held that if any doubt existed, the original records could have been summoned by the SDO, which was not done.
23. The Boards order shows due application of mind. It has assigned cogent reasons holding that the entry in CH Form 45 was genuine and the mistake in Khatauni was clerical. There is no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional defect apparent on the face of record.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned orders dated 18.03.1999 and 20.08.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue are well reasoned, supported by material evidence, and suffer from no illegality, perversity, or lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
26. No order as to costs.
(Irshad Ali,J.) November 14, 2025 Adarsh K Singh