IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings made by subordinate authorities unless empowered by subsequent amendments.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar, J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 had died and their legal representative/heirs have already been substituted (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners). Similarly, the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9/1, 10, 13, 14, 15, 15/1, 16 & 17 had died and their legal representatives/heirs have also been substituted (hereinafter referred to as the respondents).

3. The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 03.03.1978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the original tenure holder was Angad Rai and thereafter his son Purai. Purai had three sons namely Horilal, Rikhai and Sheo Charan. The petitioners belong to the family of Horilal whereas the respondents belong to the family of Sheo Charan. The dispute is between the descendants of Horilal and Sheo Charan for Khata No. 23 situated at Danpur, Tanda, District Faizabad.

5. It is further submitted that when the village had come under the consolidation, the objections were filed by the petitioners and the respondents claiming their rights on Khata No. 23.

6. It is further submitted that the Consolidation Officer had decided the objections of the objectors and partly allowed the claim in favour of the petitioners with regard to certain Gatas of Khata No. 23 treating it as a sole tenancy of the petitioners.

7. It is further submitted that against the said order, two appeals under Section 11 (1) of the Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1953) were filed by the both the parties as both were aggrieved. The appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 04.04.1972 and the appeal preferred on behalf of the respondents was allowed. Against the appellate order dated 04.04.1972, the petitioners preferred a revision under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, which was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved the present writ petition has been preferred.

8. It is further submitted that the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and substituting the findings given by the Consolidation Officer by its own finding which is not within the jurisdiction of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act, 1953.

9. It is further submitted that Section 48 of the Act, 1953 only empowers the Director of Consolidation to examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authorities for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order and not empowered for appreciating the evidence and substituting it by his own findings, hence the impugned order passed by the revisional court is without jurisdiction and in support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, which are as follows:-

(i) Firstly, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the para no. 3 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dular vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Ors. reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 198.

(ii) Secondly, he has placed reliance upon the para no. 6 of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Moti and Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in 2005 (99) RD 222.

(iii) Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the para nos. 13 and 14 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Kripa Shankar (Dead), Thr. LRs and Ors. reported in 2014 STPL (Web) 239 SC.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents and the learned State Counsel has submitted that Section 48 of the Act, 1953 has been amended and Ex