SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 365

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.D. KOSHAL, . BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.
Babu, Appellant
Versus
Dy, Director of Consolidation, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1970
Decided on 5-8-1981.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 133 (1) (a) – Civil Appeal – Possession of land - It is common ground between the parties that appellant can succeed only if he is shown to have been in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359 (which corresponds to agricultural year 1951-52 reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar) - Deputy Director, Consolidation, who decided the case in second appeal gave a finding in his order that appellant had not been proved to be in possession in that year - Held, Finding above mentioned being one of fact is not open to challenge before us unless it can be shown that it is perverse or based on no evidence at all, which is not the case here. Both the Deputy Director and the Director have given cogent reasons to negative the claim of the appellant that he was in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359. Consequently - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

KOSHAL, J. :— This appeal by certificate granted under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constn. is directed against an order dated 9th Sept., 1969 passed by the High Court of Allahabad, dismissing in limine a petition under Art. 226 of the Constn.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the appellant can succeed only if he is shown to have been in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359 (which corresponds to the agricultural year 1951-52 reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar). The Deputy Director, Consolidation, who decided the case in second appeal gave a finding in his order dated 2nd June, 1969, that the appellant had not been proved to be in possession in that year. The finding was confirmed in revision by the Director of Consolidation on 22nd Aug. 1969, and it was that order which was under challenge before the High Court.

3. The finding above mentioned being one of fact is not open to challenge before us unless it can be shown that it is perverse or based on no evidence at all, which is not the case here. Both the Deputy Director and the Director have given cogent reasons to negative the claim of the appellant that he was in possession of the land in dispute in Fasli year 1359. Consequently, we see no reason for interference with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal with costs throughout.

Appeal dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 756

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top