Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on November 21, 2024, said that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, being a Revisional Authority under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Land Holdings Act, 1948, has jurisdiction to interfere with the finding on facts of the subordinate authority only when the said findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence on record or contrary to law.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol said that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot exercise such jurisdiction to reappreciate the entire evidence or finding of fact unless the concerned authority below acted beyond its jurisdiction or such findings suffered from error apparent on the face of the record or such finding beset with surmises or conjectures.

The apex court upheld the order of the Allahabad High Court of 2011 whereby the judgment and order of August 28, 1976 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation at Deoria, and order of October 1, 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at Deoria were set aside. The Settlement Officer, Deoria Sadar, in turn, had set aside the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer against the appellant Shambhu Chauhan at Deoria in the suit by order of October 18, 1975.

The appeal was related to land situated in village Muda Dih, Tappa Deoria. Sehati and Bandhoo sons of Neoor were brothers. Bandhoo had one son namely Agloo, who was married to Aftee. Aftee died in the year 1959. After the death of Aftee, the disputed land came to be recorded in the name of Sehati in pursuance of a mutation order of December 15, 1959. The disputed land continued to be recorded in the names of Jhagru and Bhusal sons of Sehati and Ram Kirpal alias Chirkut, the respondent, as Bhumidhar and Sirdar.

In 1973, by a notification of July 12, 1973, the disputed land was notified for consolidation operations. Smt Gulabi filed objections under section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 before the Consolidation Officer, claiming herself to be the daughter of Aftee and co-tenancy over the disputed land.

After affording adequate opportunity to the parties to establish their claim and discharge the burden of proving the issues, the Consolidation officer dismissed the objections filed by Smt Gulabi and held that the disputed land for the last 16 years was in the possession of the respondents. Also, she was unable to prove herself to be the daughter of Algoo and, consequently, the successor of Aftee.

The apex court noted that the findings of fact concerning the relationship of paternity stood reversed both by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. However, perusal of the said orders of August 28, 1976 and October 1, 1981 only revealed that the authorities had not appreciated the material in its entirety, resulting in conclusions of fact crossing the threshold of perversity.

The question thus arose whether the Revisional Authority can enter into the finding of facts, in other words, could the Revisional Authority have come to the conclusion of no interference being required in the finding of the Appellate Authority, after having examined in detail independently the evidence in record?

Referring to Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, the bench said, in our considered view, the Deputy Director of Consolidation, being a Revisional Authority, has jurisdiction to interfere with the finding on facts of the subordinate authority only when the said findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence on record or contrary to law.

The court pointed out that the findings of the Consolidation Officer were not perverse and were very well supported by the evidence. As such, interference therewith by the Revisional Authority was an error in law, which error stood corrected by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment.

"We may note that the burden to discharge the onus of paternity would lie upon Smt Gulabi in terms of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872," the bench said.

Examining the evidence of Smt Gulabi in ocular; and documentary forms, the bench said "The ocular version, in our considered view, correctly stands rejected by the Consolidation Officer as also the High Court, for the witnesses, namely, Jhagru and Pujan, are found not to be inspiring confidence and their testimonies unbelievable."

The court found that Smt Gulabi rested her claim only on the birth register, which itself had not been proven in accordance with law, for none who had either maintained the record or made entries therein stands examined. That apart, the document itself did not inspire confidence for, as had been observed by the High Court, entries made therein are factually incorrect, it pointed out.

The court said that the High Court, by its judgment impugned, while allowing the writ petition rightly and exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, observed that the courts below committed an error of law in accepting the inadmissible evidence produced by petitioner therein.

"It is undisputed that from 1959 to 1973, no effort was made to challenge the mutation order. While no limitation to challenge the same stands prescribed. The 14-year time gap is entirely unexplained. In other words, it may be said that the belated challenge is afflicted by delay and laches," the bench said.

In the case, the court said that the Appellate and Revision Authority returned the findings of fact, which were perverse, based on an incomplete and erroneous appreciation of evidence, which rightly stood corrected by the High Court.

Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Shambhu Chauhan Vs Ram Kirpal alias Chirkut & Ors