Chandrika (Dead) By Lrs. vs Sudama (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Chandrika (Dead) by LRs. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Sudama (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 12.06.1978 and 04.05.1983 passed by the 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