The court emphasized the importance of proving adoption deeds and the limited jurisdiction of the revisional court under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Kamal Mehrotra and Sri Randhir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the Basic Year of the consolidation operation, Mathuri (husband of the petitioner) along with other co-sharer was recorded over plots of Khata Nos. 343, 219 & 276, situated in village - Kursara, Pargana-Jalaun, District Jalaun.

3. Against the Basic Year entry, several objections were filed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act, one set of objection was filed by respondent no. 2/Sukh Ram on the basis of adoption deed alleged to be executed by Sri Mathuri in his favour on 13.6.1973 and another set of objection was filed by petitioner - Smt. Khumani, being daughter of deceased Shri Mathuri, so both claimed that their name be recorded on the place of deceased Shri Mathuri. In order to appreciate the controversy, family pedigree will be relevant which is as follows:

4. Before Consolidation Officer, 4 issues were framed in which issue no. 2 was, who is legal heir of deceased Mathuri and issue no. 3 was whether Sukh Ram is adopted son of Mathuri?

5. Oral and documentary evidences were adduced before Consolidation Officer by petitioner as well as respondent no. 2. While deciding the issues nos. 2 & 3, Consolidation Officer considered the oral and documentary evidence, the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act as well as Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act were also taken into consideration. Consolidation Officer recorded finding of fact that formalities of adoption as provided under Section 9 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is not proved so Sukh Ram cannot be held as heir of Mathuri rather petitioner Khummani is the legal heir of deceased Mathuri, being his daughter, accordingly, Consolidation Officer by his order dated 30.4.1974 directed that name of Smt. Khummani-petitioner be recorded as legal heir of Mathuri, in respect of plots of Khata Nos. 323, 276 & 219 and the objection of Sukh Ram – respondent no. 2 on the basis of adoption deed was rejected. Respondent no. 2 challenged the order dated 30.4.1974 through appeal under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by order dated 20.11.1974. Respondent no. 2 challenged the appellate order dated 20.11.1974 through revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 24.09.1980, allowed the revision filed by respondent no. 2, setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and ordered to record the name of respondent no. 2 over disputed Khata Nos. 343, 219 & 276 after expunging the name of petitioner-Mathuri, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The writ petition was admitted on 8.1.1981 and the interim order was also granted staying the operation of the impugned order dated 24.9.1980. In the meanwhile, on 3.8.1982, interim order dated 8.1.1981 was modified to the extent that if the order dated 24.9.1980 has already not been implemented, then the operation of the order shall remain suspended till further orders.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revisional court while passing the impugned order dated 24.9.1980 has exceeded his revisional jurisidiction as that time revisional court was having limited jurisdiction. He placed upon Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act as on prior to 10.11.1980 and subsequent with effect from 10.11.1980 which are as follows:

Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act before 10.11.1980 was as follows:

48(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the