2006 Supreme(SC) 1053

2006(8) Supreme 801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Arijit Pasayat and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Dharamraj & Ors. - Appellants
versus
Chhitan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7507 of 1997
Decided on 6-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.G. Padia, Sr. Advocate, Bharat Ram and Praveen Swarup, Advocates.
For the Respondents : O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Ms. Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma and Trilok Nath Saxena, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled position of law that in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it is always permissible for it to correct the decision of the consolidation authorities or to declare the law on the basis of facts and proof of such facts.

Headnote:(i) U.P. Consolidation of Holidays Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2) - Tenancy rights - Claim of - Originally land belonged to ‘S’, ancestor of appellants - Subsequently, in year 1338 F this land was recorded in the name of ‘A’ by way of settlement - On death of ‘A’ the said land was recorded in the name of ‘Ja’ and then in the name of ‘Ji’ - As ‘Ji’ was not traceable in his place his wife and minor son represented the estate as the legal heirs and representatives of ‘Ji’ - She entered into a settlement with respondents - Thereby the minor son represented by his mother agreed to have co-tenancy rights in respect of the land - Respondents 1 to 3 being successors in interest from the side of ‘A’ whose name was duly recorded in respect of the said lands were entitled to succeed to the said land on basis of identity and resettlement of the same - Appellants could not get the property on basis that originally this land had been recorded in the name of ‘S’ and that the said land was their ancestral property.

       Held : Although originally the said land had belonged to Saltanati but subsequent event had clearly indicated that it was recorded in the name of Adhin and therefore the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, admittedly the successors in interest of the estate of Adhin, were entitled to succeed. Accordingly, there cannot be any doubt that the identity of the said land was changed from Saltanati to Adhin and thereafter to respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Even all the findings arrived at by the Deputy Director, Consolidation in respect of 10 plots in Khata No.111, as noted herein earlier, the names of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would exclusively be entered. At the same time, the Deputy Director, Consolidation had also held that the names of the appellants should be included in remaining plots of Khata No.111. From the above admitted fact, it is clear that the lands recorded in the said Khata were directed to be recorded in different names. From this it is apparent that the identity of the lands in Khata No.111 were directed to be changed which is not permissible in law. (Para 24)

       Such being the position, it must be held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the successors in interest from the side of Adhin whose name was duly recorded in respect of the said land were entitled to succeed to the said land on the basis of identity and resettlement of the same. If the identity of the land has been changed, the appellants could not get the property on the basis that originally this land had been recorded in the name of Saltanati and that the said land was their ancestral property. Therefore, the pedigree set up at the instance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, even if it cannot be relied on, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to succeed on the basis of the aforesaid fact.(Para 25)

       We must also keep it on record that it was not disputed before the consolidation authorities nor it was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that the identity of the said land had changed in view of the resettlement in favour of Adhin. That being the position, we must hold that the appellants could not acquire any co-tenancy rights even if the appellants succeeded in proving the pedigree set up by them and also acquisition of the land by common ancestor.(Para 26)

       Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was in error in giving co tenure holder rights to the appellants herein in some of the plots of Khata No.111 on the ground that those plots initially belonged to Saltanati and it was ancestral holding of appellants.(Para 27)

       (ii) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition scope to interfere with the orders of quasi judicial authority - In writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it is always permissible for it to correct the decision of the consolidation authorities or to declare the law on the basis of facts and proof of such facts - By process of judicial review, High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact - U.P. Consolidation of Holidays Act, 1953 - Section 9A(2).

       Held : It is well settled position of law by catena of decisions of this Court that in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it is always permissible for it to correct the decision of the consolidation authorities or to declare the law on the basis of facts and proof of such facts.(Para 18)

       If the quasi judicial tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding to the High Court. By the process of judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact. If the findings are based on no evidence or based on conjectures or surmises and no reasonable man would on given facts and circumstances come to the conclusion reached by the quasi-judicial authority on the basis of the evidence on record, certainly the High Court would oversee whether the findings recorded by the authority is based on no evidence or beset with surmises or conjectures.(Para 20)

       The Consolidation Officer as the original authority under the Act on consideration of the material on record held the appellants to be co-tenure holders in respect of the said land with respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the Consolidation Officer was justified in holding that the names of the appellants with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be entered in respect of the lands recorded in Khata No.111, i.e. the case made out by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that they may be declared as sole tenure holders in respect of Khata No.111 was not accepted. (Para 21)

       As noted herein earlier, the Deputy Director held the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal to be exclusive tenure holders of ten plots and in respect of the remaining plots of this Khata, the Deputy Director, Consolidation directed the names of the appellants as well as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be recorded as co-tenure holders.(Para 22)

       The High Court while reversing the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation had not set aside the findings of fact arrived at by them but on the other hand has declared the question of law on the admitted facts and the findings of fact arrived at by the consolidation authorities.(Para 28)