JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th January, 2006, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
2. In the Basic year Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji (Deity) through Sarvakar Haridas was recorded as tenure-holder. It transpires from the record that in C.H. Form-23 some entries were made on the basis of an order allegedly passed in conciliation proceedings by Assistant Consolidation Officer. It further appears from the record that Haridas who was Sarvakar of the tenure-holder (Deity) moved an application that this is a forge entry as no order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceeding and same may be expunged. The matter came up before this Court in Writ Petition 32133 of 1999 wherein this Court while remanding the matter directed that petitioners are entitled to get opportunity on the question whether entry is forge or not. On remand, the matter was enquired into and it was found that entry made in consolidation record on the basis of alleged order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceeding was forged. Present petition is preferred against aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
4. Learned Counsel for petitioner urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation that there is no such order is perverse. The order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceedings which was not taken into account by Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order. Learned Counsel for petitioner did not produce any certified copy of the alleged order passed by Assistant Consolidation Office in conciliation proceeding.
5. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
6. On careful consideration by the Consolidation authorities, it was found that entry made in favour of petitioner was forged as no such order was passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceeding. No material was brought to the notice of this Court by learned Counsel for petitioner that any such order was ever passed on the basis of which entry was made in revenue record. Findings of Consolidation authorities are based on appraisal of evidence on record that entries were made in revenue record without any order passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer in conciliation proceeding. There is no error of law apparent on the face of record.
7. The Consolidation authorities are competent to decide right, title, interest and liability in relation to the land of a tenureholder. Tehureholder is defined under Section 3(11) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, same is being quoted below:
3(11) Tenureholder' means a [Bhumidhar with transferable rights or Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights], and includes-
(a) an asami,
(b) a Government lessee or Government grantee, or
(c) a co-operative farming society satisfying such conditions as may be presecribed.
8. Admittedly, Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji (Deity) is Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. Bhumidhar is recorded through Sarvakar- Haridas. Actually petitioner is not disputing rights of Bhumidhar. He is disputing rights of Sarvakarship, which can be decided by Civil Court and cannot be decided by the Consolidation authorities and as such Consolidation authorities rightly did not decide the question whether Sri Shanti Hanuman Ji, who is Deity, is liable to be represented through Haridas or through Ram Nagina Das-petitioner.
9. My view is supported by the judgment reported in 1971 R.D. 19 Mahant Rama Kant Das v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, relevant Paragraph of which is being reproduced below: -
...It is, therefore, clear that the Consolidation authorities had jurisdiction only to decide questions relating to the rights of tenureholders. A dispute as to who is the Mahant or Sarbakar of Math is a dispute of a civil nature cognizable by a Civil Court. It cannot be said to be a dispute relating to the rights of tenureholders. Upon the death of a Mahant or Sarbakar no question of mutation or succession to the right of the tenureholder arise. In my opinion, therefore, the dispute as to who is the Mahant or Sarbakar of a Match cannot be decided by the Consolidation authorities and is totally beyond their jurisdiction.
10. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order was rightly passed in accordance with law. Impugned order does not suffer from any error of law. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.