2009 Supreme(SC) 706

Supreme Court Of India
ARIJIT PASAYAT,TARUN CHATTERJEE
GULJAR SINGH
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION
Decided On : 04/15/2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
High court, in the exercise of its revisional-cum-supervisory power, cannot go into the intricate details of facts and decide the questions raised therein, unless such orders such orders are based on perversity and arbitrariness.
Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar had jurisdiction to exercise power of the DDC.
DDC could proceed to modify even the basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Revisional power – High court, in the exercise of its revisional-cum-supervisory power, cannot go into the intricate details of facts and decide the questions raised therein, unless such orders such orders are based on perversity and arbitrariness. (Para 9)

       (b) Administration of justice – Administrative law – DDC showing some land submerged in water – Challenge by appellants – No firm evidence adduced – Observation of DDC cannot be interfered with. (Para 10)

       (c) UP Reorganization Act, 2000 – Section 86 – All the notifications issued by the Govt. of Uttar Pradesh applicable to the state of Uttaranchal – Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar had jurisdiction to exercise power of the DDC. (Para 12)

       (d) UP consolidation of Holdings Act – Section 48 – DDC is conferred with wide discretionary powers under the Act to adjudicate the issue posed before him – DDC deciding the case after hearing parties and considering all points as directed by High Court – DDC could proceed to modify even the basic year entries if found to be wrongly derived at – High Court rightly affirming conclusions of DDC. (Para 15, 18)

       (2000) 3 SCC 103; AIR 1955 SC 283 – Relied upon

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 136 – In an appeal as the instant one, where all materials and issues discussed in their petition were elaborately discussed and argued before the High Court, high standard must be met in the way of evidence produced to support the case of the appellants. (Para 19)

       Facts of the case:

       Mohan Singh, Bhan Singh and Ram Singh jointly purchased an area of 302 Bighas in the village of Jagannathpur, Tehsil Kashipur, and District Udham Singh Nagar, out of which the share of Mohan Singh was recorded as 101 Bighas. Thereafter, all these persons together with three other persons, namely, Saudagar Singh, Sohan Singh and Atma singh acquired 1486 Bighas and 6 Biswas by a lease deed executed by zaminder Radhey Shayam in their favour. In the said deed, share of Mohan Singh was specified as 464 Bighas. Therefore, in total, Mohan Singh claimed his share in the property in dispute as 565 Bighas in respect of the aforesaid lands.

       Various objections and counter objections were filed by other co-sharers disputing the claim of Mohan Singh.

       The tenure holders moved an application in the year 1959 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, stating therein that 17 tenure holders divided the property in dispute in 1951 and from that time, they were in possession according to their division, but their names had not been recorded in the revenue records according to their divisions and possession. It was alleged that they prayed for correction of their names in the revenue records according to amicable arrangement. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed their application and correction proceedings started in the concerned village and the matter came up before the Asstt. Recording Officer.

       Mohan Singh (the father of the appellants) filed an application on 11th of January, 1963 before the Asstt. Recording Officer to give effect to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the amicable arrangement arrived at between the parties. That was not done.

       Thereafter, Ram Singh and others also filed an application before the consolidation Officer praying that the Khatas be divided in pursuance of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

       The consolidation Officer allowed the claim of Mohan Singh to the effect that his total share in the aforesaid land was 564 Bighas, but he directed that since Mohan Singh had co-opted his son, nephews, brothers, and widow of his brother as co-tenants in his share, his share was reduced.

       The appellants thereafter filed two appeals against the order of the Consolidation Officer which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), whereas the appeal filed by Hari Singh and others was allowed.

       The Settlement officer (Consolidation) directed that the entries in the record of rights may be prepared in accordance with the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 31st of august, 1959.

       The appellants thereafter had filed two revision petitions against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) wich were rejected by the DDC on 7th of July, 1975. Mohan Singh, the father of the appellants then challenged the aforesaid orders before the High Court of Allahabad by way of Writ petition No. 7625 of 1975 which was finally dismissed by the High Court of Uttaranchal by affirming the order of the DDC.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result:

       Appeals dismissed.