Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Bachchu Lal – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) Nos. 5661, 6413 of 1980, Writ (B) No. 5675 of 1984
Decided On : 09-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : D.N. Misra, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Chandra Kumar Rai, Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, S.N. Misra
For the Respondents: Abhay Nitin Singh, Ramendra Asthana, Shachindra Kumar Mishra, Siddharth Nandan, Surendra Pratap Singh

Entries recorded under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act possess a presumption of correctness and cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence, reaffirming the principle of estoppel.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A (2) - Claims of unauthorized possession and inheritance disputed in consolidation proceedings - Findings upheld regarding correct entries of 1348 Fasli, allotment of shares modified, and application of principle of estoppel. (Paras 12, 16, 22)

(B) Concurrent Findings - Supreme Court precedent states concurrent findings of facts in writ jurisdiction should not be disturbed unless patently perverse. (Para 13)

(C) Validity of Entries - Entries recorded in consolidation proceedings hold presumption of correctness, not disturbed without substantial evidence. (Para 19)

Facts of the case:
Six petitions challenged the modifications of shares in consolidation proceedings under the Act of 1953, where the entries of 1348 Fasli were accepted by all courts concerned. (Paras 2, 12)

Findings of Court:
No legal errors or patent illegality found in the concurrent findings of subordinate courts, affirming the correct entries and share allotment based on longstanding records. (Paras 22)

Issues: Whether the entries of 1348 Fasli were valid and whether the concurrent findings of three courts could be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings may only be disturbed if they are patently perverse or if extraordinary circumstances warrant it.

Result: All writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of objections under up consolidation act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments on validity of 1348 fasli entries. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. court's recognition of concurrent findings. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. application of estoppel and substantive evidences. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. dismissal of writ petitions with acknowledgment of delay. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Sri R.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. All the above referred writ petitions are arising out of seven objections filed under Section 9 -A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the ‘Act of 1953’).

3. Three objections filed by Guru Dayal were based on his claim on basis of unauthorised possession (Unadhikar Kabza). The Consolidation Officer rejected his claim by a reasoned order that his possession could be considered only upto 4-5 years, which could not be sufficient to allow his claim. The said finding was upheld by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and thereafter by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

4. Guru Dayal has not challenged the above referred orders before this Court, therefore, finding returned against him has attained finality.

5. Remaining four objections were essentially based on inheritance or on a Bainama by one of the objector.

6. All the Courts under the ‘Act of 1953’ have accepted entries of 1348 Fasli recorded in the name of Rameshwr Din and his grandson Ajab Sukh (son of predeceased son namely Jeet Lal) and accordingly shares were allotted.

7. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has modified the allotment of shares and thereafter the Deputy Director of Consolidation has further modified the shares. The undisputed pedigree is a follows:

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly submitted that if the entries of 1348 Fasli are considered to be valid, they may not have a good case and in case said entries are considered to be doubtful and without any basis, its consequence will follow i.e. shares will be required to be redetermined.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that it is not possible that, if Jeet Lal was predeceased son of Rameshwar Din, then, on his death his share has to be devolved back to his father i.e. Rameshwar Din and accordingly inherited to his remaining two other sons i.e Ram Das and Ram Dayal and accordingly shares were required to be redetermined and reallotted.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that there are concurrent findings so far as entries of 1348 Fasli is concerned. The witnesses have not disputed aforesaid entries and shares were rightly modified, firstly by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and subsequently by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and there is not much dispute on said shares.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. In the present case all three Courts under the ‘Act of 1953’ has considered, the entries of 1348 Fasli to be correct and accordingly shares were allotted with certain modifications at the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation and later by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

13. Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2015) 1 SCC 553 has reiterated that concurrent findings of facts may not be disturbed in a writ jurisdiction except in extraordinary circumstances such as finding being patently perverse or Authority has acted beyond jurisdiction.

14. The findings returned by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as entries of 1348 Fasli is concerned are relevant and same are reproduced hereinafter: