The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

This writ petition is arising out of a proceeding initiated under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953").

2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 2 consisting of 16 plots, area 3.447 acres and Khata No. 20 consisting of plot no. 724/3, area 295 Kadi, situate in Village Nebuwadeeh, Tehsil Burhanpur, District Azamgarh.

3. During basic year petitioner's father, namely, Baleshar was recorded in Khata No. 2 to the extent of half share and in Khata No. 20, he was recorded as a sole tenant.

4. Objections were filed before Assistant Consolidation Officer, where a compromise took place between parties and accordingly order dated 14.08.1970 was passed. The order states as under:

5. Against aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by Bansraj, i.e., Respondent-7 before Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Another appeal was filed by father of petitioner only in respect of plot no. 724/3. Both appeals were dismissed vide order dated 24.12.1971.

6. Against aforesaid order two revisions were filed, one by Bansraj and another by father of petitioner, which were allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 22.03.1974 and matter was remitted back to Consolidation Officer to decide afresh.

7. On remand, objections were filed on behalf of petitioner's father before Consolidation Officer alongwith documentary evidence in order to prove his title over land in dispute as well as possessory title by filing khasra extract, irrigation slip etc. Consolidation Officer after considering entire material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence rejected objections of respondents vide order dated 13.07.1977 and held that petitioner's father will remain to the extent of half share and contesting-respondents would get 1/6 each as it was recorded in basic year Khatauni. Relevant part of the order is mentioned here in after:

(Emphasis added)

8. The aforesaid order passed by Consolidation Officer was challenged by way of filing appeal by contesting-respondents which was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.1979 and relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Against aforesaid orders passed by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation a revision was preferred by respondents which was allowed by means of impugned order dated 30.04.2001 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

(Emphasis supplied)

10. Sri R.C. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Murtaza Ali, Advocate for petitioner, submitted that findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Appellate Authority were not set aside by Revisional Authority still revision was erroneously allowed. He further submitted that impugned order was an order of reversal, therefore, there must be specific finding to reject the findings returned by lower authorities, however, it does not reflect from impugned order. Revisional Authority has not considered the documentary and oral evidence submitted on behalf of petitioner.

11. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that in accordance with United Provinces Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, Bhumidhari