IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to interfere with finding on facts of subordinate authority only when said findings are perverse or not supported by any evidence on record or contrary to law.
(2) While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot exercise such jurisdiction to reappreciate entire evidence or finding of fact unless concerned authority below acted beyond its jurisdiction or such findings suffer from error apparent on face of record or such finding beset with surmises or conjectures.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25th November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. W.P. No. 13286 of 1981, whereby the judgment and order dated 28th August, 1976 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation at Deoria, and order dated 01st October, 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at Deoria were set aside. The Settlement Officer, Deoria Sadar, in turn, had set aside the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer against the Appellant at Deoria in Suit Nos.6273 and 6264 by order dated 18th October 1975.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Khata Nos.38 and 193 (referred to as “disputed land”) are situated in village Muda Dih, Tappa Deoria, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. Sehati and Bandhoo sons of Neoor were brothers. Bandhoo had one son namely Agloo, who was married to Aftee. Aftee died in the year 1959. After the death of Aftee, the disputed land came to be recorded in the name of Sehati in pursuance of a mutation order dated 15th December, 1959. The disputed land continued to be recorded in the names of Jhagru and Bhusal sons of Sehati and Ram Kirpal alias Chirkut (Respondent Herein) as Bhumidhar and Sirdar. In the year 1973, vide notification dated 12th July, 1973, the disputed land was notified for consolidation operations. Smt. Gulabi filed objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953,¹[Hereinafter referred as the “Act”] before the Consolidation Officer, claiming herself to be the daughter of Aftee and co-tenancy over the disputed land.

3. The sole issue that arises for consideration is, as to whether the High Court, in terms of the impugned judgment, rightly upheld the order dated 18th October, 1975 passed by the Consolidation Officer under the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, which initially stood quashed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 28th August, 1976, as affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 01st October, 1981.

4. The Consolidation Officer framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff Gulabi is the daughter of Algu and successor or Aafti?

2. Whether Gulabi plaintiff on khata no.38 is in possession as bhumidar?

3. Whether Gulabi, the plaintiff is the lone sirdar recoded on gata no.422, 451, 687, 717, 1080 of khata No.193?

4. Whether Gulabi the plaintiff is sirdar on gata no.394, 420, 453, 494, 518, 524, 707 and 1085 of khata no.193?

5. What are the shares of the parties?

6. Whether Jhagru and others defendants are the lone bhumidar and sirdars of khata no.38 and 193?

7. Whether ownership of the plaintiff has ceased to exist and defendant has become Sirdar under section 210?

5. After affording adequate opportunity to the parties to establish their claim and discharge the burden of proving the issues, the Consolidation officer dismissed the objections filed by Smt. Gulabi and held that the disputed land for the last 16 years was in the possession of the respondents. Also, she was unable to prove herself to be the daughter of Algoo and, consequently, the successor of Aftee.

6. The findings of fact concerning the relationship of paternity stood reversed both by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. However, perusal of the said orders dated 28th August, 1976 and 01st October, 1981 only reveal the authorities not to have appreciated the material in its entirety, resulting in conclusions of fact crossing the threshold of perversity. A connected question then would be - whether the Revisional Authority can enter into the finding of facts, in other words, could the Revisional Authority have come to the conclusion of no interference being required in the finding of the Appellate Authority, after having examined in detail independently the evidence in record?

7. Section 48 of the Act deals with the revisional power of the Director of Consolidation Officer