The court affirmed that factual findings by lower authorities, supported by evidence, cannot be overturned without demonstration of perversity or jurisdictional error.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. 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 9 -A (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:

(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:

(Emphasis Supplied)

6. Aforesaid order was challenged by father of original petitioners by way of filing a revision. However, it was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was held that Janki was not ‘Faraar’, and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:-

(Emphasis Supplied)

7. Aforesaid two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively are challenged in present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that original respondent no.2, Janki was recorded as ‘Faraar’ in revenue records, therefore, he was not in possession over the land in dispute. Sale deed executed in favour of other respondents would not have any legal consequence since possession of land in dispute in pursuance of aforesaid sale deed was not handed over as vendor (Janki) was not in possession over land in dispute and he was rightly recorded as ‘Faraar’ in revenue records. Counsel for petitioners referred the findings returned by the Consolidation Officer in this regard that recital of sale deed states that vendee would take steps for possession.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that documents relied upon by Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority have no legal basis since it does not prove that original respondent no.2 (Janki) was in possession over land in dispute.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has submitted that findings returned by two authorities i.e. Appellate as well as Revisional Authority that Janki was not ‘Faraar’ were based on various documents, therefore, could not be considered to be a perverse finding.

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was a dispute between Ram Achal (father of original petitioner no.1) and Janki (respondent no.2) under Section 229 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as in proceedings undertaken under Section 145 Cr.P.C., Janki was found in possession over land in dispute, therefore, entries made in the revenue records that Janki was ‘Faraar’ was contray to the documents on record.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

13. Issues which have cropped up for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether n