The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 by substituting his own findings without setting aside the findings of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation.

RAJAN ROY, J.

1. Heard Shri U. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vijay Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the private opposite parties.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 01.08.1980 passed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1953') thereby setting-aside the order dated 26.10.1979 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Pratapgrah.

3. This Court on 14.08.1980 had suspended the operation of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 01.08.1980 and had provided that it shall not be given effect.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that on the start of consolidation operations, in the basic year Khatauni pertaining to Khata No. 259 comprising of 24 Gatas/Plots, the petitioners were recorded as bhoomidhar and Jagannath etc. were recorded in the remarks Column i.e. Part 2 of the Khatauni, as Class-9 occupants. An objection was filed by Jagannath and others claiming 2/3 share in the land in dispute on the ground that it was ancestral property coming down from the common ancestors Ram Tahal and Hanuman. It was also their case that partition had taken place sometimes prior to the birth of Jagannath.

5. It is not out of place to mention that the parties herein are successors of common ancestors Ram Tahal and Hanuman.

6. The petitioners herein also filed objections stating that the property had been acquired by Shiv Bheekh their predecessor in interest and they had sole rights in respect thereof as also that the opposite parties herein did not have any right and the entries as alleged in their favour were fraudulent and illegal.

7. Be that as it may, the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 24.02.1979 accepted the objections of the opposite parties herein and determined their share as half, the other half belonging to the petitioners. Being aggrieved the petitioners herein filed an Appeal under Section 11 of the Act, 1953 before the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who allowed the same. Being aggrieved the opposite parties herein filed a revision before the D.D.C., who allowed the same in toto and it is this order which is under challenge.

8. The contention of Shri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had exceeded his revisional jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 by substituting his own findings after himself appreciating the facts and evidence without pointing out any illegality and without setting-aside the findings recorded nor reasons given by the A.S.O.C. In this regard he relied upon various decisions reported in Gaya Din (D) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs. Hanuman Prasad (D) Through Lrs. and Ors., (2001) AIR SC 386; Jangi Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Ors., (2002) 93 RevDec 35 ; Judgment dated 05.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 2287(Cons.) of 1979; Babu Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; Nathu Ram Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., (2017) 7 ADJ 650 He further contended that the findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are based on conjecture, surmises and presumptions bereft of any basis on facts and evidence, therefore, they are unsustainable. The petitioners have been recorded in respect of land in question as tenants ever since the second settlement which started in 1301 fasli and was over by 1306 fasli and even after the coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 1950') they continued to be recorded as bhoomidhar i.e. for the past more than 70 years without any challenge being made by the opposite parties to their rights in respect of the land in question in which they had sole rights and the S.O.C. after considering the facts and evidence on record had given cogent reasons to set-aside the ord