Back
1999 Supreme(All) 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. DIKSHIT, J.
Malku And Others - Appellants
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Banda And Another - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 26494 of 1997
Decided On : 09-08-1999
For the Appellant : Bala Krishna Narayana and Dhruva Narayana.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has the power to re-appreciate evidence and interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority where additional evidence is prayed for and is permitted to be led by the revisional authority.
Headnote:
CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT - SECTION 48 - REVISION - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - POWER OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION TO RE-APPRECIATE EVIDENCE AND INTERFERE IN FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from objections filed by petitioners and others challenging the inclusion of respondent No. 2 Rani's name in the consolidation records as the successor of the last tenure-holder, Smt. Vadi. The petitioners claimed that Ram Gopal, Rani's father, predeceased Chittu, the last male tenure-holder, and thus succession should be determined through Chittu. Rani, on the other hand, asserted that Chittu predeceased Ram Gopal, making her the rightful successor as Ram Gopal's daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, after considering additional evidence led by parties, held that Ram Gopal succeeded Chittu and allowed Rani's revision. The court upheld the Deputy Director's decision, finding that he had the power to re-appreciate evidence and interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority, especially when it required reassessment of evidence in view of additional evidence brought on the record.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation has the power to re-appreciate evidence and interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority where additional evidence is prayed for and is permitted to be led by the revisional authority. 2. Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to remand the case back to the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation for decision afresh in view of the additional evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that when the complete matter is before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision, there is no fetter on the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to interfere in the finding of fact, especially when it requires reassessment of evidence in view of additional evidence brought on the record of the case. 2. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Preetam Singh v. Assistant Director (Consolidation), which held that the Assistant Director (Consolidation) had the power to examine the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer as to the abandonment of the land in dispute by those tenants who had been recorded at the crucial time in the Khasra of 1359 Fasti, even if the remand order of the Settlement Officer had not been specifically put to challenge in separate and independent proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision to re-appreciate evidence and interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority.
B. Dikshit, J.
This writ petition arises out of two objections, one being filed by petitioners Rajendra Prasad. Chunkawan and Shyam Lal while other by Ganga and Malku son of Bodhi, Rajju son of Sheodarshan. In both the objections, it was prayed that the name of respondent No. 2 Rant is farzi and. therefore, her name be deleted. The objections were contested by Smt. Rani. She claimed that she being daughter of Ram Gopal, the husband of last tenure-holder, her name is rightly recorded over disputed Khata. The petitioners disputed Smt. Rani's parentage also. They claimed that Smt. Rani is not daughter of Ram Gopal. As Consolidation Authorities finally held Smt. Rani to be daughter of Ram Gopal, the pedigree on the basis of which this petition has been contested stands settled as follows :
XXX
2. The main dispute between parties in this petition is as to whether Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu? There is no dispute between parties that Smt. Vadi was last tenure-holder on whose death succession opened u/s 172 read with Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short 'Act'). According to petitioners, Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi, the succession has to be determined through last male tenure-holder Chittu while Smt, Rani claimed that Chittu predeceased his son Ram Gopal and. therefore, on death of Smt. Vadi. she (Smt. Rani) succeeded as Ram Gopal's daughter.
3. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 14.3.81 allowed petitioners' objection and directed expunction of name of Smt. Rani. Dissatisfied with the order of Consolidation Officer. Smt. Rani preferred appeal. The appeal was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Ban da by order dated 24.8.82, who upheld the claim of Smt. Rani and ordered that name of Smt. Rani recorded in basic year of consolidation operation shall continue. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision. A compromise was filed in revision according to which Smt. Rani was not to get any share. Smt. Rani disputed that compromise and claimed that she did not enter into it. The revisional authority did not determine the dispute about entering of parties into compromise but by order dated 20.4.87 set aside the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation and remanded the case for determining validity of compromise and to what extent it will affect the share of parties. The revisional authority directed for decision afresh by Settlement Officer, Consolidation keeping in view the effect of said compromise. The Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation, Banda, re-examined the matter in compliance of remand order. It held the compromise to be invalid. He recorded finding of fact that as Ram Gopal pre-deceased Chittu and, therefore, the succession on death of Smt. Vadi is to be determined through Chittu, who was last male tenure-holder. Smt. Rani preferred a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. As the succession to Smt. Vadi was dependent on answer to the question if Ram Gopal predeceased Chittu or he died after Chittu, the petitioners led additional evidence at revisional stage. They filed certified copies of Khatauni of the year 1382F and 1363 to 1365F on 19.4,97. As additional evidence was led In revision, the revisional authority provided an opportunity of rebuttal to Smt. Rani Devi also. Smt. Rani Devi in rebuttal filed a copy of order of Tehsildar of the year 1957 passed in mutation which was numbered as a Case No. 1386, and a copy of the statement of village Lekhpal, which he made in that case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda. after taking into consideration additional evidence led by parties and holding that on death of Chittu, Ram Gopal succeeded and, therefore, the succession is to be determined from Ram Gopal, allowed the revision by order dated 30.4.1997.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that Chittu pre-deceased Ram Gopal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise
