Ram Abhilakh And Anr. vs Musai And Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 25538 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182097
 
Court No. - 48
 

 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 456 of 1977
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Abhilakh And Anr.
 
Respondent :- Musai And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- I.N. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. In the present case there are concurrent findings recorded by all the three authorities below, i.e., Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation, against petitioners and in order to disturb the same or to issue a writ of certiorari in writ jurisdiction the Court has to satisfy the conditions as specified by 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 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 there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for re-appreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity.

13. We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since, the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High Court has no where stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances.?

Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (supra):

?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]

2. Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners submits that reasons given by Consolidation Officer as well as Settlement Officer of Consolidation were essentially based that petitioners were not able to give any revenue record to show that their names were recorded in revenue record in respect of disputed land. He further submits that at the stage of Revisional Authority revenue record of Fasli years 1334 and 1348 were submitted which were considered, however, it was later on ignored. Learned counsel has referred the averments made in para 15 of writ petition, which is reproduced hereinafter:

?15. That since the khatauni of 1334 and 1348 faslis were not on the record before the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer, Consolidation and hence they held that the name of Bachchoo son of Mata Badal was entered in the land of khata no. 194 in 1356 fasli for the first time without any basis. The petitioners, however, filed the khatauni of 1334 fasli and 1348 fasli to show that Bachchoo was recorded in 1334 fasli and 1348 fasli as well and that his name was not entered for the first time in 1356 fasli. The khatauni extracts of 1334 and 1348 faslis sufficiently meet the reasoning given by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation to discard the petitioners? claim of co-tenancy in khata no. 194. The Deputy Director of Consolidation although noted the contention of the petitioners in para 4 of his judgment and has also observed that the petitioners have relied upon the entry of 1334 and 1348 faslis but while recording his findings with regard to this khata in para 7 of his judgment, he has altogether omitted to consider the effect of entries in 1334 and 1348 falis in the name of the petitioners? grandfather and has simply adopted the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that Lekhpal entered the name of Bachoo son of Mata Badal by mistake for the first time in 1356 fasli and that it was without any basis. Had he considered the entries of 1334 and 1348 faslis he could not have said that the entry in 1356 fasli was made for the first time without any basis.?

3. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondent and no counter affidavit has been filed.

4. I have perused the impugned orders carefully. Consolidation Officer while considering the objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1953") has framed issues and held that entries of petitioners in Fasli year 1348 could not be considered to be true when Bachchu son of Mata Badal has expired earlier.

5. Settlement Officer of Consolidation has also considered the evidence on record and returned a specific finding that there was no basis to record names of petitioners in 1356 Fasli. These findings were confirmed by Revisional Authority also.

6. The crux of argument of learned counsel for petitioners is based on revenue record of Fasli years 1334 and 1348. However, as referred above, the findings returned by all the three authorities below, i.e. not to accept that entries to be true, are based on substantive reasons that the person entered in revenue record was already expired. There was no continuity of entry since before and after 1334 and 1338 fasli years, there was no document which could support claim of the petitioner. Petitioners have failed to refer any record to substantiate these revenue entry as well as that I do not find any argument or document which warrants interference of this Court in writ jurisdiction to the extent that findings arrived by all the three authorities below are perverse.

7. In view of above discussion as well as taking note of judgments in Krishnanand (supra) and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (supra), I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings or to issue a writ of certiorari.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

AK