Laxmi Upadhyaya vs D.D.C. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 24077 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175317
 
Reserved on 21.08.2023
 
Delivered on 06.09.2023
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
***
 
Court No. 48
 
***
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 390 of 1976 
 
Laxmi Upadhyaya 			........		                          Petitioner
 
				          	                 Through :- Sri Jamwant Maurya, 										      Advocate
 
Vs.
 
D.D.C. & Othrs				........		                     Respondents
 
				                            Through :- Sri A.C. Nishad,  S.C, 							                 Sri Rajesh Kumar, 											     Advocate 
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 

1. Heard Sri Jamwant Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents and Sri A.C. Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. The facts which could be culled out from the pleadings are that name of the original petitioner was entered in revenue records of land in dispute i.e. in Khata No. 66, 125 and 121, in the basic year. During the consolidation proceedings, an objection was filed by petitioner alleging inter-alia that in C.H. Form 5, names of respondents were wrongly entered over the land in dispute. The land in dispute was under occupancy tenancy of Ishaq s/o Gafoor, Mohi-Uddin and Tahir Ali. Aziz Khan and Sadiq Ali (died heirless) who belonged to one family. The chief tenant by an unregistered document has mortgaged land in dispute in favour of ancestors of Aziz Ali and Sadiq Ali.

3. Subsequently, dispute arose regarding possession between the chief tenant and mortgagee and, therefore, proceedings under Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. were drown during which the parties have compromised and accordingly entire mortgage money was paid to the mortgagee who has delivered possession to Ishaq Ali and Mohi-Uddin, and they entered in possession over the land in dispute.

4. Thereafter, Ishaq Ali and Mohin-Uddin have deposited 10 times of rent and obtained Bhumidhari Sanad and thereafter transferred the land in dispute by a registered sale-deeds dated 15th April, 1957 and 24th of December, 1957, in favour of original petitioner. Thereafter, original petitioner got his name mutated over the land in dispute and his name was in Khata No.66 in revenue records.

5. The objections of original petitioner were contested by original respondent who claimed to be a tenant in the land in dispute.

6. The Consolidation Officer dismissed objection of the respondent and upheld claim of the petitioner by an order dated 20.12.1973. The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter :-

"मु०नं०-6766-

1. Whether Hamid Ali S/o Azij Ahamad, Ayaz Ahmad, Imtiaz Ahamad, Faiz Ahamad, Mumtaj Ahmad Ss/o Niaz Ahmad are co bhumidhar and co sirdar to the extent of 2/3 share.

2. whether mohd. Husain is entitled to ½ share is khata in dispute.

3. whether Laxmi upadhyay is exclusively entitled to the disputed plot.

4. Whether name of Laxmi Upadhyay is wrongly recorded in khata no.66.

मु0नं0-6672 व 8673

1. Whether Habibul Rahman is sirdar of plot no.2214 area-28.

***

मौ० हुसेन व उनके लड़के नबी इसलाम ने बयान दिया है। इस्लाम ने बयान दिया कि आराजी निजाई सादिक अली खाँ की की पैदा हुई है। और उनकी लड़की हकीमुन निशां है और कहा है कि उनके साथ रहकर हकीमुन निशा खेती करने का काम करती थी। वंशवृक्ष में हामिद व नियाज अहमद को अजीज खां का लड़का एवं सादिक अली का भाई स्वीकार किया है। अपनी उम्र 20 साल बताया है। जिरह में कहा है कि न तो सादिक अली को देखा था न अजीज को देखा था। मौ० हुसेन ने बयान में कहा कि नियाज अहमद और हामिद अपना हिस्सा देकर मो० हुसेन का कब्जा करा दिया है। इस प्रकार बाप बेटे के बयान में कितना अन्तर है। 1359 फसली आराजी निजाई मोहिनउद्दीन व इसहाक के नाम जमन 6 (1) में दर्ज है। 1363-65 में प्रतिo 1 व 3 सीरदारी के नाम में भी दर्ज है। 1359 में सादिक अली खां के नाम में भी दर्ज है एवं मौ० हुसैन वरासत से, और 1362 फ. में सादिक अली, नियाज अहमद एवं मो० हुसैन वरासत से दर्ज हुए। जब श्रीमती हकीमुन निशा सादिक की लड़की थी तो 1362 फसली में मोहम्मद हुसेन ने अजीज खां के लड़के हामिद हुसेन और नियाज अहमद का नाम क्यों दर्ज होने दिये। इससे जाहिर - है हकीमुन निशा सादिक अली की लड़की नहीं हैं और अब यह मोहम्मद हुसेन अपनी बीबी को सादिक अली की लड़की बना रहे है। खाता नम्बर 326 में आराजी निजाई गलत दर्ज है। इस प्रकार खाता नम्बर 326 से पूरी आराजी खारिज होगी और आराजी नम्बर 2253 का कुल रकबा 16 होगा यह रकबा 125 में दर्ज होगा। वाद बिन्दु तद्नुसार निर्णीत किये जाते है। "

(Emphasis Supplied)

7. The original respondents have filed an appeal before Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, however, the same was dismissed by an order dated 05.03.1975 and the relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

"अधीनस्थ न्यायालय में मुकदमा नम्बर 2027 सन् 1951 अन्तर्गत धारा 107 / 117 भा०दं० वि० सं० के एक सुलहनामें की नकल दाखिल है जिससे साबित होता है कि मोहीउद्दीन आदि ने 417 रूपया पर रेहमनामा सादीक अली को अदा किया और सादीक अली ने कब्जा छोड़कर दिया और उक्त आधार पर मुकदमा समाप्त कर दिया गया यह एक महत्व पूर्ण साक्ष्य है जो स्वीकारोक्ति का असर रखता है इसमें मुहम्मद हुसैन आदि भी फरीक मुकदमा थे इसलिये यह उनके ऊपर विवन्धन का असर रखता है। अपीलकर्ता के विद्वान अधिवक्ता ने यह तर्क रखा कि फौजदारी की के मुकदमें में यह सुलह साक्ष्य में ग्राह्य नहीं है। मैं इस तर्क से सहमत नहीं हूँ। यह इस बात से स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि सादीक अली उक्त खाते के दखलकार काश्तकार 1901 ई० से नहीं थे जैसा कि 1349 फसली के खतौनी में दर्ज है किन्तु 1308 फसली के खतौनी में वह स्वयं गलत साबित है। अपने आदेश के समर्थन में मुहम्मद हुसेन का बयान हुआ है। मोहीउद्दीन खां के तरफ से कोई आपत्ति नहीं हुयी थी और न स्वयं बयान दिया है ज0उ0 के पश्चात मुहम्मद हुसेन आदि ने कोई भी विवादित भूमि का लगान अथवा मालगुजारी जमा किया। उसका कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर नहीं है। मुहम्मद हुसेन ने अपने बयान में धारा 107/117 भा०दं०वि० सं० के सुलहनामें को गलत साबित करने की कोशिश नहीं किया है उक्त सुलह 1308 फसली का खसरा और साक्ष्य के उक्त विवेचना से सिद्ध है कि सादीक अली उक्त भूमि के दखलकार काश्तकार 1901 ई0 से नहीं थे। 1349 फसली के बन्दोबस्त में उनका नाम इन्द्राज गलत हुआ। 1359 फसली की खतौनी में लेखपाल ने गलत तौर से उनका खाता पृथक बना दिया। वही इन्द्राज चकबन्दी आने तक चलता रहा जो गलत है। विद्वान चकबन्दी अधिकारी का निर्णय सही है कि सादीक अली इस भूमि के असल काश्तकार नहीं रहे। सादीक अली 1901ई0 से दखल काश्तकार नहीं थे यह 1308 फ० के खतौनी से साबित है। 1308 फसली के खतौनी से साबित है। 1308 फसली के बाद कुरबान अथवा उनके वारिश बेदखल हुये इसका कोई साक्ष्य पत्रावली पर नहीं है। सादीक अली के नाम कोई नया सावित जमीन्दार व बन्दोबस्त किया है यह भी नहीं है। कुरबान अली के रहते हुये दूसरा बन्दोबस्त का कोई प्रश्न नहीं उठता। यदि कोई नया बन्दोबस्त होता तो इन्द्राज अलग खाते होता और जमन-6 में हरगिज न होता जब यह भूमि सादीक अली की साबित नहीं है तो न हकीमुन्नीसा और न मुहम्मद हुसेन इस भूमि को नहीं पा सकते है।"

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. In above circumstances, the original respondents have filed a revision petition and by impugned order dated 29.11.1975, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed revision petition and reversed the concurrent findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Appellate Authority. The relevant part thereof is as follows :-

"मोहीउद्दीन व इसहाक ने इन गाठों का दस गुना जमा करके भूमिधरी सनद प्राप्त किया और दिनांक 15.4.1955 व दिनांक 24.12.57 के बैनामें द्वारा लक्ष्मी को यह गाटे बेच दिये। फलस्वरूप आधार वर्ष में यह गाटे लक्ष्मी के खाता सं0 66 में भी दर्ज है। उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट होता है कि खाता सं0 326 में दर्ज गाटे वास्तव में सादिक अली के थे, यह इसहाक और मोहीउददीन के नहीं थे। सादिक अली की मृत्यु दिनांक 10.3.53 को, मोहम्मद इसहाक की मृत्यु दिनांक 5.10.1950 को तथा (अजीज की मृत्यु दिनांक 6.11.51 को हुई जैसा कि पक्षकारों के बीच में चल रहे ग्राम औरंगाबाद के बाद सं0 1920 आदि में चकबन्दी अधिकारी के न्यायालय में दाखिल फौतियों से स्पष्ट होता है कि जिसे दोनों पक्षों के विज्ञान वकीलों ने मुझे दिखलाया। दोनों पक्षों के अनुसार इसहाक की मृत्यु अपने भाइयों में सबसे पहले हुई। सादिक अली की मृत्यु बाद उसके वारिस मोहम्मद हुसैन हामिद अली व नियाज हुए। मोहम्मद हुसैन को 1/3 अंश तथा हामिद तथा नियाज को 2/3 अंश जमींदारी उन्मूलन अधिनियम की धारा 171 के अर्न्तगत मिलेगा। हामिद तथा नियाज की बेवा सदरुन्निशा व उसके पुत्र एजाज अहमद व लक्ष्मी तथा सफीउल्ला ने एक सुलहनामा दिनांक 4-3-73 को चकबन्दी अधिकारी के न्यायालय में दाखिल किया है। जिसमें हामिद व एजाज ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि विवादित भूमि में उनका अंश नही है और लक्ष्मी को खाता सं0 66 के गायें दे दिये जायें तथा गाटा सं0 2253 क्षेत्रफल0.16 एकड़ अहमद उल्ला व सफीउल्ला को दिया जावे। इस सुलह नामें के आधार पर हामिद और नियाज के पुत्रों का अंश लक्ष्मी और सफीउल्ला को उन गाटों में मिलेगा जो लक्ष्मी और सफीउल्ला को निम्न न्यायालयों ने दिया है। मोहम्मद हुसैन का 1/3 अंश व लक्ष्मी व सफीउल्ला को नहीं मिलेगा।

विपक्षी लक्ष्मी के विद्वान वकील ने यह तर्क दिया कि सादिक अली विवादित गाटे के मुर्तहिन थे। दिनांक 20.5.51 को अजीज खाँ ने जा० फौजदारी की धारा 107 / 117 में 417 रू0 ले लिया और रेहनइनफाक कर दिया और तब से इसहाक व मोहीउददीन विवादित भूमि के हकदार हो गये और निगरानी कर्ता मोहम्मद हुसैन अथवा अजीज का कोई हक था भी तो वह समाप्त हो गया। दिनांक 20.5.51 की एक रसीद अवश्य दाखिल की गयी है जिसके द्वारा अजीज ने 417 रू0 लिया है पर यह रसीद विधिवत साबित नहीं करायी गयी है और न ही इस रसीद से यह पता लगता है कि विवादित भूमि की फकरेहनी के लिए यह रसीद दी गयी है। बहरहाल चूंकि यह रसीद अजीज ने दिया है इसलिए इसकी कोई पाबन्दी मोहम्मद हुसैन पर नहीं हो सकती है। यह भी मानने योग्य नहीं है कि सादिक अली विवादित भूमि के गुर्तहीन थे क्योंकि 1334 फा व 1340 फ० तथा उसके बाद के इन्द्राज से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि विवादित भूमि सादिक की थी और उस पर मोहीउद्दीन तथा इसहाक के नाम गलत दर्ज थे।"

9. Learned counsel for petitioner has raised a legal issue that Revisional Authority has erred in law by disturbing concurrent findings returned by Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, without any finding of perversity or being beyond jurisdiction and placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ram Dular Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, 1994 RD 290 (SC) and relevant paragraph thereof reproduced hereinafter :-

"3. The question, therefore, is whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. It is true that the finding whether Jokhu and Sampath are sons of Angan is a finding of fact and that the authorities are entitled to consider that question. But while exercising the revisional power under Section 48, what requires to be seen is, whether the Deputy Director has considered the question in its proper perspective or had ignored any material evidence on record in coming to the said conclusion. Section 48 reads thus:

"48. Revision and Reference.- (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit." It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact-finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the rest (sic root) of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding. In this case it is seen that admittedly all the parties have been residing in the same locality. It had been found by the Consolidation Officer that the appellant was in possession of the lands and he had produced revenue receipts for continuously 15 years from 1365 Fasli onwards and that finding was not disturbed by the Deputy Director. It is true that the record for the Fasli 1306 was found fabricated and the name of Sampath was not mutated and Jokhu alone was mutated in the revenue records for 1307 Fasli. The Consolidation Officer recorded the genuineness of the entries for the year 1308 Fasli which was not even disputed by the respondents. In the entries for 1308 Fasli the name of Sampath was found as son of Angan and was mutated. This vital aspect was omitted to be taken into consideration by the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director on the other hand concluded that for the year 1308 Fasli also the name of Sampath was fabricated. It is an obvious error committed by the Deputy Director and the High Court refused to correct it on the plea that it is only a finding of fact. Once, from the entries it is seen that Sampath was also mentioned as son of Angan and the appellant had been continuously in possession for 15 years it would clearly indicate that he has been in joint possession in respect of land in the aforesaid Khata Nos. along with the respondents. As seen, there is no alternative genealogy filed by the respondents. The Deputy Director merely recorded the genealogy of the respondents and their ancestry, omitting the branch of the appellant. Thereby he practically omitted to consider the genealogy which was even undisputed by the respondents. Under these circumstances the Deputy Director has committed manifest error of law by reversing the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the Settlement Officer is confirmed to the extent of half share in the ancestral property acquired by Angan as affirmed by the Settlement Officer on appeal. But in the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs."

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on Sheshmani and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti and others, 2000 RD 210 (SC) and the relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter :-

4. Scope of Section 48 after its amendment in 1968 again came up for consideration by this Court in Ram Dular vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and others (1994 Supp. (2) SCC 198). Now this Section reads as under:-

"48. Revision and Reference.(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being, heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he things fit.

5. Again question arose as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. The Court said that while exercising the revisional powers under Section 48 what was required to be seen was whether the Deputy Director had considered the questions in its proper perspective or had ignored any material findings on record in coming to a particular finding. The Court said: -

"It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than interlocutory order passed by the authorities under the Act. But in considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction of the original authority as a fact- finding authority by appreciating for itself of those facts de novo. It has to consider whether the legally admissible evidence had not been considered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding."

11. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Sheo Nand and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2000 RD 213 (SC) and the relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter :-

"19. The Section gives very wide powers to the Deputy Director. It enables him either suo-motu on his own motion or on the application of any person to consider the propriety, legality, regularity and correctness of all the proceedings held under the Act and to pass appropriate orders. These powers have been conferred on the Deputy Director in the widest terms so that the claims of the parties under the Act may be effectively adjudicated upon and determined so as to confer finality to the rights of the parties and the Revenue Records may be prepared accordingly.

20. Normally, the Deputy Director, in exercise of his powers, is not expected to disturb the findings of fact recorded concurrently by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), but where the findings are perverse, in the sense that they are not supported by the evidence brought on record by the parties or that they are against the weight of evidence, it would be the duty of the Deputy Director to scrutinise the whole case again so as to determine the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. In a case, like the present, where the entries in the Revenue record are fictitious or forged or they were recorded in contravention of the statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Land Records Manual or other allied statutory provisions, the Deputy Director would have full power under Section 48 to re-appraise or re-evaluate the evidence on record so as to finally determine the rights of the parties by excluding forged and fictitious revenue entries or entries not made in accordance with law.

21. If, therefore, during the course of the hearing of the revision filed by the appellant under Section 48 of the Act, the Deputy Director reopened the whole case and scrutinised the claim of the appellants in respect of two other villages, it could not be said that the Deputy Director exceeded his jurisdiction in any manner. It will be noticed that while scrutinising the evidence on record, the Deputy Director had noticed that the entries were fictitious and in recording some of the entries in the revenue record in favour of the appellants, statutory provisions including those contained in U.P. Land Records Manual were not followed. In that situation, the Deputy Director was wholly justified in looking into the legality of the entire proceedings and disposing of the revision in the manner in which he has done."

(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Lastly, counsel for petitioner, has placed reliance on Ram Awadh Vs. Ramdas, 2009 (106) RD 625 (SC) and the relevant paragraph thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-

"12. Before parting with this judgment, we may also consider the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the revisional court viz. Assistant Director, Consolidation had no jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to set aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In support of her submission, she relied on two decisions of this court in Ram Avtar & Ors. Vs. Ram Dhani & Ors.[(1997) 2 SCC 263] and Ram Dular Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur & Ors. [JT 1994 (3) SCC 341]. From these authorities, it is clear that the Director Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act does not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, without any basis and on assumptions. In view of our foregoing discussion, we are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not open to the Assistant Director Consolidation, whose order was affirmed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

13. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and the Revisional Court and affirm the decisions of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs."

(Emphasis Supplied)

13. Learned counsel for petitioner, on merit, has submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly placed reliance on an alleged lease dated 08.02.1990 which was for the first time filed before said Authority and it was not placed on record before Consolidation Officer as well as before Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

14. Learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has though allowed the revision petition but has not effectively and in a specific terms has reversed concurrent finding of the two Authorities below. The alleged lease was neither given effect in revenue records nor it was acted upon. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order only on basis of conjunctures and assumption which are not supported by any record and recorded a finding that Kurban Ali was ejected from land whereas there was no provision of ejectment of Kurban Ali.

15. The above submissions are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent who has supported the impugned order and submitted that Deputy Director of Consolidation had rightly accepted the submissions made by respondents and rightly placed reliance on the lease.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that lease executed between parties cannot be considered as a bogus document only on ground that entries were made in pursuance of it, after few years of its execution and Sadiq Ali was never a mortgagee and mortgage was not redeemed in the year 1951. Learned counsel further placed reliance on the findings returned by the Revisional Authority.

17. Heard counsel for the parties, perused record and written submissions.

18. The facts referred above would show that the Consolidation Officer and the Appellate Authority has accepted claim of petitioner and rejected claim of respondents and returned a finding that Sadiq Ali was not Dakhalkar Kastakar of the land since 1901. The Lekhpal has wrongly separated the khata in Khatauni of the year 1359 F. Sadiq Ali was not real Kashtkar and no settlement was effected to Sadiq Ali, whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation, for the first time considered effect of a registered lease dated 8.2.1919 without even returning a finding about any legal consequence that it was not entered immediately in revenue records. Even the lease has not been proved as no evidence was led either before the Consolidation Officer or before the Appellate Authority and even before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, no evidence was led. No document was placed on record along with this writ petition in support of lease and erroneously interfered in concurrent findings returned by the authorities on basis of evidence. The effect of Bhumidhar Sanad and sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner was also not considered, therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed error by accepting the lease. Therefore, above referred judgments become relevant. Recently, the Supreme Court in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1996, has reiterated scope of writ of certiorari and circumstances and conditions when it could be issued. The relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced hereinafter:-

"65. Thus, from the various decisions referred to above, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that a writ of certiorari is a high prerogative writ and should not be issued on mere asking. For the issue of a writ of certiorari, the party concerned has to make out a definite case for the same and is not a matter of course. To put it pithily, certiorari shall issue to correct errors of jurisdiction, that is to say, absence, excess or failure to exercise and also when in the exercise of undoubted jurisdiction, there has been illegality. It shall also issue to correct an error in the decision or determination itself, if it is an error manifest on the face of the proceedings. By its exercise, only a patent error can be corrected but not also a wrong decision. It should be well remembered at the cost of repetition that certiorari is not appellate but only supervisory.

66. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, is issued by a superior court in respect of the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions by another authority when the contention is that the exercising authority had no jurisdiction or exceeded the jurisdiction. It cannot be denied that the tribunals or the authorities concerned in this batch of appeals had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. However, the argument would be that the tribunals had acted arbitrarily and illegally and that they had failed to give proper findings on the facts and circumstances of the case. We may only say that while adjudicating a writ-application for a writ of certiorari, the court is not sitting as a court of appeal against the order of the tribunals to test the legality thereof with a view to reach a different conclusion. If there is any evidence, the court will not examine whether the right conclusion is drawn from it or not. It is a well-established principle of law that a writ of certiorari will not lie where the order or decision of a tribunal or authority is wrong in matter of facts or on merits. (See : King v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., [1922] 2 A.C. 128 (PC))"

[Emphasis Supplied]

19. As referred in above cited judgments, consistent view of the Supreme Court is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of his power is normally not expected to disturb the finding of fact recorded concurrently by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation except where the findings are perverse i.e. not supported by evidence brought on record, however, in the facts of present case as discussed above, the referred eventualities are not present.

20. The findings returned by the Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer Consolidation were based on evidence as well as that the Revisional Authority has not disturbed the findings in its entirety rather it has created a new case and has given more importance to an alleged lease which was for the first time placed on record before the Revisional Authority, without returning a finding as to why sale-deed executed in favour of petitioner were ineffective.

21. In view of the above discussion, I do not find that there was any reason or material available before Revisional Authority to disturb the concurrent findings and that it has committed error by considering the fact of lease deed for the first time without returning any specific finding on the issue and that finding returned by two authorities below were perverse or beyond their jurisdiction.

22. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order suffers with patent illegality and irregularity, therefore, it is a fit case where this Court under writ jurisdiction could interfere.

23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.11.1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.

24. In facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 06.09.2023

P. Pandey

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J]