Back
2000(8) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Gaya Din (D) through LRs. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Hanuman Prasad (D) through LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 191 of 1991
Decided on 27-11-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : V.K.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, Sunil Datta Mishra and A.S. Pundir, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
There can be no doubt that under amended Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, the revisional power of the Director of Consolidation is not confined to errors of jurisdiction as was the position under the unamended provision. The power of the revisional authority now extends to satisfying himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order. It is well-settled that conceptually the powers of a revisional authority, even if couched in wide language, cannot be equated with the powers of an appellate authority. (Para 10)
Notwithstanding the fact that Section 48 has been couched in wide terms, it only permits interference where the findings of the subordinate authority are perverse in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or where they suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. (Para 13)
Where the High Court found that the order of the Deputy Director was based on improper consideration of evidence and wrong application of well settled principles of law about presumption of jointness in a joint Hindu Family and quashed the orders of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the High Court s order could not be said to be illegal. (Paras 14 to 16)
(ii) Special Leave Appeal-New plea for first time before Supreme Court-Whether could be permitted. (Paras 6 and 7)
(iii) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Bhumidari and Sirdari lands-Khata s stood registered in name of some of members-Other s claim that land joint family property-Finding of consolidation that property belonged to joint family-Khatedars ought to be taken as holding collectively for benefit of all members of family. (Paras 14 to 19)
JUDGMENT
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1685 of 1975 dated October 20, 1989. The lis has its origin in the objections filed by the successors of Sheetal Prasad, the respondents, under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Consolidation Act ) at the time of Partal against the successors of Bala Prasad and Sadhau, the appellants, who were recorded as Khatedars of khatas in dispute. They are Khata Nos. 2, 11,21,23 which, comprise of bhumidhari lands, khata Nos. 28, 39 which consist of sirdari lands of village Akathi and khata No. 8 which is a bhumidhari land of village Chainpur.
2. To appreciate the scope of the controversy and the facts giving rise to it, it would be helpful to notice the genealogy of the family of the parties :
"PEDIGREE
Matai
Manni Gokul
(died issueless)
Bala Pd. Sadhau Sheetal Pd. Parmeshwar Chandrika =Smt. Sheoraja (died issueless) (died issueless)
Gayadin Brindaban Mathura Gaya Hanuman Bhikhari A1 A2 A4 A5 R1 =Smt. Sukhdei =Smt. Sheo R2 Devi A3 Jagannath R3
[A represents appellant and R represents respondent]"
3. In the objections filed by them, the respondents claimed that they and the appellants are the members of Joint Hindu family and that the entries in the names of appellants are in representative capacity for all the members of the joint family and, therefore, their names should also be recorded as the co-sharers along with the names of the appellants. This claim was contested by the appellants denying existence of joint family and asserting that they are holding the khatas in their individual capacity.
4. On considering the evidence adduced by the parties the Consolidation Officer held that all the khatas did not belong to a common ancestor and that it was not shown that they were acquired for the whole family from the joint family funds by the head of the family so he dismissed the objections on December 23, 1969. The respondents herein carried the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. On June 4, 1970, he allowed the appeal and set aside the said order of the Consolidation Officer. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the appellants and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on July 6, 1971. By order dated September 22, 1973, the Settlement Officer held that the khatas in question were joint Hindu family property and all the parties were co-sharers who were entitled to 1/6th share each. The appellants again carried the matter in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer holding that the khatas in question are held by the appellants individually and allowed the revision on April 7, 1975. The respondents assailed the validity of that order before the High Court in the writ petition. By the impugned order the High Court quashed the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated April 7, 1975 and restored the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated September 22, 1973. The appellants are thus before us in appeal.
5. Mr. V.K.S. Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Article 226 of the Constitution and that in any event the tenancy rights were inherited not in accordance with the personal law of the parties but in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
