The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of consolidation authorities unless jurisdictional errors or manifestly perverse decisions are identified.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. This writ petition is arising out of consolidation proceedings. Petitioners before this Court have lost before all the three authorities, i.e., Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1953”).

2. Sri Ruduvant Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, is not able to dispute that scope of interference by High Court in writ jurisdiction in the concurrent findings recorded by Consolidation Authorities, is very limited, i.e., except the findings are absolutely perverse.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners’ consistent case was that they are owner of land in dispute of the share of Kadedeen in Khata No. 40 and 130, situate in Village Chati, Pargana Garwara, District Jaunpur, through a registered Will dated 07.05.1951 executed by Kadedeen in favour of petitioners. However, admittedly no such issue was framed by Consolidation Officer while considering the objections filed by parties and, therefore, the Will was not proved in accordance with law. He further submitted that in appeal petitioners have specifically taken the plea about execution of Will, however, without taking note of such grounds and without framing any issue in this regard, Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rejected claim of petitioners on basis of Will. For reference relevant part of order dated 24.01.1979 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation is reproduced hereinafter:

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in revision said objection was reiterated, however, on similar grounds revision of petitioners was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 19.02.1980 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:

5. Learned counsel further submitted that Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation, both have committed error that matter ought to have been remitted back to Consolidation Officer to pass a fresh order after framing issue on validity of Will, however, it was not done. He also submitted that without specific pleadings on the issue, both authorities, i.e., Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, have made comments disputing execution of Will. No opportunity was granted to petitioners to prove the Will in accordance with law.

6. None appeared on behalf of respondents despite a notice was issued by this Court and on basis of office report dated 15.05.2022 this Court vide order dated 17.08.2022 found that service upon respondents was sufficient.

7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record.

8. As already referred that the in case of concurrent findings of all authorities under consolidation proceedings, no interference could be caused, except in exceptional circumstances, such as, if the impugned order was passed by an authority who does not have jurisdiction to pass such order or the findings are patently perverse. In this regard, the Court takes note of judgments passed Supreme Court in Krishnanand (dead) through Lrs and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553 and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and others , 2023 SCC Online SC 1996. Relevant paragraphs of said judgments are mentioned hereinafter:

Krishnanand (supra):

“12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that t