Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.1299 OF 2009
Chandrika (Dead) by LRs. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sudama (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and order dated 24.01.2005 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.10553 of 1983 whereby the High Court dismissed
the said writ petition filed by the original appellant
herein and affirmed the orders dated 29.07.1977,
12.06.1978 and 04.05.1983 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2019.04.15
16:52:56 IST
Reason:
1
Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation
and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.
2. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the
disposal of this appeal, which involves a short point.
3. By impugned order, the High Court (Single
Judge) dismissed the writ petition filed by the original
appellant herein and affirmed the three orders of the
Revenue Authorities, namely, the Consolidation Officer
dated 29.07.1977, the Settlement Officer
Consolidation dated 12.06.1978 and the Deputy
Director Consolidation dated 04.05.1983 passed under
the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act).
4. So, the short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal filed by the unsuccessful
writ petitioner, is whether the High Court was justified
in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and thereby
was justified in affirming the three orders passed by
the Revenue Authorities under the Act.
2
5. The dispute is between the members of two
branches of a family of one Sheo Sahai, namely, one
branch, which is represented by Bechu, i.e.,
respondents and the other branch represented by
Rajbali, i.e., the appellant’s predecessorintitle. The
dispute relates to the land (plot Nos.248, 521, 289,
290, 294, 563, 564, 854) situated in village Hetimpur
Pargana, Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Deoria, details of
which are specified in Annexure P1 to Annexure P7
to the SLP.
6. The dispute was raised by the respondents under
Section 9A (2) of the Act before the Consolidation
Officer contending therein that the original appellant's
father Late Rajbali surreptitiously and without any
right, title and interest in the land in question got
entered his name in the Revenue Records. It is this
issue, which was probed by the Revenue Authorities.
It was, however, decided by all the Revenue Authorities
3
including the writ court against the original appellant’s
predecessorintitle and in favour of the respondents.
7. The Revenue Authorities held that the name of
Rajbali, i.e., predecessorintitle of the original
appellant herein, could not have been entered in the
Revenue Records for want of any right, title and
interest in the land. It was accordingly directed to be
deleted from the Revenue Records.
8. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the
original appellant’s predecessorintitle and then by
the original appellant herein before the first appellate
authority, second appellate authority and lastly, in the
High Court giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of
special leave in this Court by the writ petitioner.
9. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant
died and his legal representatives were brought on
record to contest the Lis.
10. Heard Mr. T.N. Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned counsel for
the respondents.
4
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in this appeal.
12. In our considered opinion, the finding impugned
in this appeal being concurrent finding of fact and was
rightly held by the High Court as binding on the High
Court in its writ jurisdiction, it is also binding on this
Court, calling for no interference therein. Even
otherwise, we find no case for any interference in the
impugned finding on merits for the following reasons.
13. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the land in question was consistently recorded in the
name of Bechu in the revenue records through whom
the respondents herein had claimed their right, title
and interest in the land.
14. So far as claim of the original appellant's
predecessorintitleRajbali was concerned, he claimed
to represent the other branch of the family through
5
one Lalji (brother of Bechu), as is clear from the
pedigree chart. It was, therefore, rightly held that
Rajbali had no right, title and interest in the share of
Bechu because Bechu’s share devolved on his legal
representatives, i.e., the respondents herein.
15. In our view, the aforementioned finding is based
on factual inquiry; Second, it is based on proper
appreciation of evidence, i.e., revenue entries; Third, it
is not found to be against any provision of law or
against the record of the case; and lastly, it is
supported with reasons. We, therefore, find no ground
to interfere in these findings.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants (writ
petitioner), however, argued the issues on facts but in
the light of what we have held above, there is no merit
in his submissions.
6
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is
found to be devoid of any merit. It fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
April 15, 2019
7