JUDGMENT

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.- Leave granted. Heard.

2. These appeals relate to Plot No. 1043/2/1 measuring 1.43 acres claimed by the appellant (Gram Sabha, Dhania Mau), Tehsil & District Jaunpur, U.P. as talab (tank) vesting in it. One Ram Manohar claimed sirdari rights in regard to the said land and filed objections under Section 9(A)(ii) of the V.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ("the Act", for short).

3. The Consolidation Officer, Jaunpur, by order dated 8-9-1972 held that the said land was a talab land used for irrigation purposes by the public and the name of Ram Manohar entered in regard to the said plot should be deleted and the land should be entered in the Gram Sabha khata. The appeal filed by Ram Manohar was dismissed by the Settlement Officer by order dated 11-1-1974. Ram Manohar challenged the order of the appellate authority by filing a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur. The revision petition was also dismissed by order dated 7-8-1976.

4. The legal representatives of Ram Manohar, the respondents herein, challenged the said decision in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50 of 1977. A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 4-12-2003 and set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, based on a concurrent finding and directed that the respondents be recorded as bhumidhar of the said land.

5. The review petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, by order dated 3-12-2004 solely on the ground that the counsel who had filed the revision petition was different from the counsel who had appeared for the Gram Sabha in the writ petition.

6. The said orders in the writ petition and review petition are challenged in this appeal by special leave by urging the following contentions:

(i) The concurrent finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director that the land in question is a talab vesting in the Gram Sabha, ought not to have been interfered by the High Court in a writ proceeding in the absence of any ground for interference.

(ii) The High Court was not justified in rejecting the review petition merely on the ground that it was filed by a different counsel.

7. The three consolidation authorities had concurrently held that in 1334 Fasli prior to the date of vesting, the land had been shown as a talab; the khatauni extract for 1362 Fasli showed that the name of Ram Manohar was ordered to be recorded as a sirdar in regard to the land in question vide order dated 13-5-1956 of the Additional Tahsildar; that the order dated 13-5-1956 was not produced and was also not available in the records; that the Additional Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to declare anyone as sirdar of a talab land; that except the solitary entry, there was nothing to show that Ram Manohar was the tenant; the land had always been shown as talab; and that when the land was personally inspected by the Settlement Officer in 1974, the land was a talab which was incapable of being cultivated. On the facts and circumstances, the three authorities held that the land was a talab and recording of Ram Manohar's name by the Additional Tahsildar in the year , 1956 as a sirdar was contrary to the rules.

8. The said concurrent finding of fact has been reversed by the High Court in a writ proceeding only on the ground that the khatauni extract showed that the name of Ram Manohar was entered in pursuance of a purported order dated 13-5-1956 of the Additional Tahsildar, without any explanation as to how his name could suddenly be so entered. The authorities I under the Act have decided the question with reference to the oral and documentary evidence and the relevant provisions of law. The High Court could not have interfered with the said concurrent finding by accepting the single piece of evidence relied upon by the respondents, which had been rejected for cogent reasons by the consolidation authorities.

9. The