Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities can only be overturned if demonstrated to be perverse or beyond jurisdiction, reinforcing the limits of appellate review under constitutional jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ganesh Kumar, learned counsel for contesting respondents.

2. This is a case arising out of a proceedings under Section 9A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Acts, 1953 (hereinafter called the 'Act of 1953').

3. Father of original petitioners filed an objection that name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was wrongly mentioned in revenue records, despite he was in possession over land in dispute.

4. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.12.1972 has accepted objections filed on behalf of father of original petitioners and name of original respondent no.2 (Janki) was expunged from revenue records. Relevant finding is mentioned hereinafter:

^^cSukek 1375 Q0 esa fnukad 24-02-68 dks fn;k x;k gSA 1375 Q0 esa jkevpy oxZ 9 ntZ FkkA blfy, tkudh dh vksj ls nLrkost cSukek esa Hkh ;g ugha fy[kk fd og Lo;a bl Hkwfe ij dkfot Fkk vkSj dzssrk x.k dks Hkh dkfot djk fn;k gS cfYd fy[kk gS fd cSukek nkj dks pkfg, fd vkjkth futkbZ eqoSnk ij dkfot n[khy gksdj iw.kZr;% nj iqLr ekax Hkqxr djsa vkSj viuk uke dkxtkr ljdkjh esa ntZ djk ysos] cSukek nkj dk 1375 Q0 ls vkt rd dCtk gqvk ugha D;ksafd blds izek.k esa mUgksaus ,d Hkh xokg ugha fn;k u dksbZ [kljk esa gh dCts dk bUnzkt gSA ftlls cSukek nkj dk dCtk izekf.kr gks ldsA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gaw fd tkudh 1365 Q0 ls gh xkao NksM+ dj pyk x;k vkSj mlds lkeus dh jkevpy dk dCtk gks x;k FkkA tc mldk [ksr fudyrk le>k rks fj'rsnkjksa ds gd esa cSukek dj fn;k ftudk dksbZ dCtk n[ky ugha gqvkA cSukek ds nkf[ky [kkfjt dk tgka rd iz'u gS tc mudk dCtk gh ugha gS vkSj dCts ds vk/kkj ij jkevpy oknh bl Hkwfe dk igys gh lhjnkj gksus dk vf/kdkjh gks x;k gS rc nkf[ky [kkfjt dk iz'u gh ugha mBrk vr% okn fcanq 1 LohdkjkRed rFkk okn fcanq 2 udkjkRed fuLrkfjr fd, tkrs gSaA**

(Emphasis Supplied)

5. Aforesaid order was challenged by respondents before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by way of filing an appeal which was allowed vide order dated 27.2.1973. It was held that Janki (original respondent no.2) has executed a sale deed in favour of other respondents and that land was in his possession and it was handed over to vendees also. Entry made in revenue records that Janki was "Farar" was rejected on basis of documents available on record. Relevant part of the order is mentioned hereinafter:

^^Hkwfe ys[k fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr vly dkLrdkj dks i&d 10 dh fVIi.kh tkjh djuk vfuok;Z gSA bl rjg fjLiksUMsaV us i{k esa dCts dk bUnzkt fcuk i&d 10 dh fVIi.kh tkjh fd, gj QthZ o xyr lkfcr gqvk rFkk bl QthZ bUnzkt ds vk/kkj ij fjLiksUMsaV dk uke vkjkth futkbZ ij oxZ 9 esa xyr <+ax ls ntZ fd;k x;k gSA

fjLiksUMsaV us 1 lky dh flpkbZ dh jlhn izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk yxku dh jlhn izLrqr fd;k gS fdUrq fjLiksUMsaV us gj lky ds flpkbZ dh jlhn rFk mlds eglwy flapkbZ ds yxku dh jlhn izLrqr djds ;g vkifRr ugha fd;k gS fd fjLiksUMsaV dk dCtk vkjkth futkbZ ij yxkrkj gSA Hkwfe ys[k fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr fjLiksMsaV dk dCtk rFkk oxZ 9 dk banzt QthZ lkfcr gqvk vkSj tkudh ds c;ku ls Li"V gqvk fd vihykUV dks cSukek ds vk/kkj ij ekSds ij dCtk ns fn, gSA rFkk tkudh us cSukek dh oS/kkfudrk dks Hkh vnkyr esa vk djds lkfcr fd;k gSA bl rjg fo}ku p0v0 us xyr <+ax ls jkevpy fjLiksUMsaV dks QthZ o xyr dCtk o oxZ 9 ds vk/kkj ij lhjnkj djkj fn;lk gS vkSj vihykUV ds cSukek dks oS/kkfud ugha ekuk gS cSukek cgd vihykUV oS/kkfud lkfcr gqvk rFkk vihy rnuqlkj Lohdkj dh xbZA**

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Aforesaid order was challenged by father of original petitioners by way of filing a revision. However, it was dismi