Ajab Singh & Ors vs Antram & Ors

2. This appeal arises out of a

consolidation proceeding under the provisions of

The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as

`the said Act').

3. A revision application was filed under the

provisions of the said Act by the contesting 1 respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Deputy

Director Consolidation, Agra as they were

aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation

Officer and the order of the Settlement Officer,

Consolidation and the Deputy Director reversed

the findings of both the Consolidation Officer

and those of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

4. One of the grievances which has been

raised by the appellants herein is that the order

of Consolidation Officer dated 23.12.1981 and

that of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation

dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the Deputy

Director, Consolidation while entertaining a

revision filed by the contesting respondents on

10.8.1993, which according to the appellant, is

barred by limitation. So the complaint is that

the order which has been passed by the Deputy

Director Consolidation is bad in law and was

passed ignoring the bar of limitation. That is

the main challenge before us.

5. The admitted facts of the case are that

in the year 1981 and 1982 both Haribabu and

Antram, the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2,

2 were minors. At that time the orders dated

23.12.1981 and 29.11.1982 were passed. They filed

a revision application along with an application

for condonation of delay in the year 1993. In the

revision application, the Deputy Director

Consolidation, while relying on a number of

judgments, held that the revision cannot be

treated as barred by time. It appears from a

decision in Onkar Nath Dubey Vs. Dy. Dir. Of

Consolidation and Ors. - Civil Misc. Writ No.3066

of 1972 (R.D 1977-40 (HC), that Section 6 of the

Limitation Act read with Section 341 of the said

Act would be applicable in a case like this.

6. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides

where a person, entitled to institute a suit or

make an application for the execution of a

decree, at the time from which the prescribed

period is to be reckoned, is a minor or insane,

or an idiot (here we are not concerned with the

last two situations), he may institute the suit

or make an application after the disability has

ceased and the same period which is allowed to

3 others will be available to such a person after

his disability ceases.

7. Section 341 of the said Act runs as under:-

"341. Application of certain Acts to the proceedings of this Act - Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the [Limitation Act, 1963] [including section 5 thereof] shall apply to the proceedings under this Act."

8. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid

two provisions, we intend to hold that Section 6

of the Limitation Act is expressly applicable to

the proceedings under the said Act and Section 6

of the Limitation Act referred to above engrafts

an enabling provision to a minor to institute a

proceeding by way of filing a suit or by making

an application after he ceases to be a minor

within the time prescribed to any other person

who is not a minor.

9. The decision of the Revisional Authority

in entertaining the revision at the instance of

the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 therefore

does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.

4

10. The other issues which have been found in

favour of the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2

are basically questions of fact.

11. The appellants herein have not been able to

prove that they are in actual physical

possession. Inasmuch as it has been found that

in the year 1377F, in 1379F in 804/3 no

possession is shown, in 1382F possession has been

shown to be of one year, in 1383F in one crop

nothing has been sown. In 1384F no one has been

shown to be in possession, Khasra for 1386F has

not been filed and the Khasras from 1375F to

1385F have been filed, but there is no proof of

continuous possession.

12. In the background of this factual position,

the findings of the lower authorities that the

name of the appellants should be recorded as

Bhumidar is not factually correct. Thus a finding

which is based on the analysis of the factual

aspect by the revisional authority is normally

not upset by a superior Court unless it is

demonstrably shown to be perverse. In the case in

hand, no such case is made out.

5

13. The Deputy Director Consolidation has held

that the appellants are not the actual

cultivators and actual cultivator cannot be

deprived of his land on technical ground

especially when revisionists belong to a weak

section of the community as they belong to

Scheduled Caste (Jatav). We also do not find any

error in the aforesaid findings arrived at by the

revisional authority.

14. It is a well settled legal position that

unless finding of the revisional authority

suffers from error of jurisdiction, the Superior

Court should not interfere.

15. The order of the High Court, therefore, has

correctly approved the order passed by the

revisional authority. We see no reason to take a

different view.

16. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

.......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

6 .......................J. New Delhi (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) February 03, 2009

7