Fazlur Rahman And Another vs D.D.C. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25904 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:183678
 
Reserved on 19.09.2023
 
Delivered on 22.09.2023
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 

 
Court No. - 48
 
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 41 of 1976
 

 
Fazlur Rahman and another			-----			    Petitioners
 
Through : Sri A.K. Gaur, Sr. Adv.
 
Sri Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Adv.
 
Vs.
 
Deputy Director of Consolidation and others -----			Respondents
 
Through : Standing Counsel
 
Sri A.P. Tiwari, Adv.
 
******
 
CORAM : HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that, initially plots in dispute were mentioned in revenue record as "submerged land". Contesting-respondents herein initiated proceedings when village was brought under consolidation and claimed right of sole ownership. The dispute reached up to Revisional Authority and land in dispute was recorded in the name of contesting-respondents. Other proceedings were also concluded in their favour and admittedly at that stage petitioners have neither made any claim on land in dispute nor participated in these proceedings.

2. At later stage, petitioners have filed objections under Section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as "Act, 1953") with an application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned and it was deemed that objections were filed under under Section 9A of Act, 1953. The Consolidation Officer has framed following two issues:

"1- क्या वादी फजरूल रहमान आदि विवादित भूमि के सहखातेदार हैं।

2- क्या बाग 1961 मुरसान के जमानें का है।"

3. Consolidation Officer after considering rival submissions rejected objections filed by the petitioners and rejected their claim of co-tenancy vide order dated 24.07.1972. Relevant part of order is extracted hereinbelow:

"फरीकेन में 1931 ई० से पहले मुकदमें बाजी चल रही है और अलहदगी इससे भी पहले हो गयी है और कुछ दूसरी भूमि पर मुहम्मद जलील आदि प्रतिवादीगण के साथ मुकदमा भी चकबन्दी किया जो में धारा 9 में लडा है अगर उनका विवादित भूमि में कुछ हिस्सा होता तो वह अवश्य ही इस भूमि की बाबत भी धारा 9 में आपत्ति करते अपना मामल पडते। इसी भूमि बाबत मु०नं०5019, 5020 निगरानी धारा 48 सी०एच०एक्ट जो राजपति ने मु० जलील आदि के खिलाफ श्रीमान् डी०डी०सी० महोदय के यहां दायर की थी उसमें फजरूल रहमान आदि को भी फऱीक मुकदमा बनाया था और उनको नोटिस भी तामील हुई थी उनके बाद ही वह कोई कार्यवाही करके अगर वादीगण का हिस्सा तो यह भी यही बात साबित करता है कि वादी का कोई हिस्सा नहीं है और वह कार्यवाही जो वादी को करनी चाहिए थी और नहीं की वादी गण के खिलाफ स्टापिल का असर रखती है।

खसरा बन्दोवस्त में वादी के मुरिस कादरवखश का भी पेडो पर कब्जा खाना हैफियत में लिखा है मगर उसके कुछ समय वाद जो दरख्त शुमारी हुई उसमें कोई पेड वादी या उनके मुरिस के नाम दर्ज नहीं है। अतः यह साबित करता है कि वादी के मुरसान के पेड़ कट गये होने क्योंकि यह लोग बहुत पहले से अलग हो गये थे। खसरा डीह वसगित में इस गाटा 1961 को कई शिकमी वजट है और कटों पर नाम प्रतिवादी के पिता व वावत का दर्ज है। वादी के मुरिस का नाम किसी शिकमी वटे पर दर्ज नहीं है यह साबित करता है कि अगर उनका कोई हिस्सा था तो वह समाप्त हो गया था इसलिए तकसीम नामा मेंड शुमारी या खसराडीह बसगित से उनका या वादी का नाम दर्ज नहीं रहा है यह भी साबित करता है कि अगर कुछ हकुक वादी या उनके मुरिस के रहे होंगे तो वह उनसे पहले से समाप्त हो गये है फरीकैन के बीच जो मुकदमा कम्शिनर साहब की अदालत में चला था उसमें कुछ भूमि जो इस समय विवादित नहीं है जो प्रतिवाद के मुरिस की ताहा मानी गयी थी यह साबित करता है कि फरीकन बहुत पहले से अलग अलग हो गये थे और यह कहना कि खानदान मुस्तकार का रहा है और मुस्तरका जलील था मजहर अली घर के मालिक रहे है गलत साबित हो जाता है वैसे भी मुसलिम खानदान में अलग अलग होने का ही है गाटा सं 1127,1126 बन्दोवस्त से आधार वर्ष तककमी वादी या उनके किसी मूरिस का नाम नहीं रहा है प्रतिवादी ने यह भूमि मुकदमा लड कर जनता इन्टर कालेज के खिलाफ हासिल की है और प्रतिवादी की टिम न्सी इसी आदेश से मानी जावेगी जमाना मुसरस से यह जायदाद मुतवातिर या मुस्तकील तौर से फरीकेन की रही है साबित नहीं हो सका है।" (Emphasis supplied)

4. Petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before Settlement Officer of Consolidation, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.1973. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

"उपाकिंत दृष्टकोण को ध्यान में रखते हुए अब केवल क तथ्य यह भी बच रहता है कि वाया विवादितभूमि प्रतिपक्षी सं०-1 के कब्जे में परिवार कर्ता की हैसियत से है और यथाविधि अपीलकर्ता इस विवादित भूमि का मालिक है इस सम्बन्ध में इस बात को ध्यान में रखाना आवश्यक होगा कि यह मुस्लिम परिवार है पक्षों का खानदान भी एक है क्योंकि वंशावली पुष्टिकृत है मुस्लिम परिवार के पक्षों का खानदान भी एक है क्योंकि वंशावली पुष्टिकृत है मुस्लिम परिवार के बारे में कानून की महत्ता में यह बात स्वतः ही निश्चित समझी जाती है कि परिवार अलग अलग रहते है अपीलकर्ता की ओर से किसी भी लिखित अथवा मौखिक साक्ष्य के माध्यम से यह साबित नहीं की गई है कि प्रतिपक्षी सं01 का नाम विवादितनत भूमि पर खानदान के मालिक की हैसियत से रहा है ऐसी परिस्थिति में अपीलकर्ता के इस तथ्य को कि यह भी सहखातेदार है किसी तथ्य के आधार पर नहीं माना जा सकता इसके अतिरिक्त उपाकिंत जो सबूत का कागजात दाखिल किया गाय है उससे यह निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि बहुत से आपस में लडते रहे पक्षों के बीच में सन् 1961 में जो वृक्षों का बटवारा हुआ था इसके पश्चात से विवादित भूमि अथवा इसमें निहित वृक्षों पर कभी भी अपीलकर्ता के पूर्वजों का नाम दर्ज नहीं रहा है ऐसी परिस्थिति में यह कोई जायदाद पहले शामिल में थी तो भी इतने दिनों से किसी इन्द्रराज की अनुपस्थिति पर इस तथ्य को नहीं स्वीकार किया जा सकता कि अपीलकर्ता इस विवादित भूमि का हसखातेदार हैं।

यह विवादित भूमि हैदर अली के नाम के पश्चात जनता इन्टर कालेज नगरा के नाम से हो उस समय भी अपीलकर्तागणों की ओर से किसी भी प्रकार का कोई आपत्ति समर्थ न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई जनता इन्टर कालेज के पहले कोई इन्द्राज भी अपीलकर्ता की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है जिसके माध्यम से अब यह निष्कर्ष निकाला जा सके कि विवादित भूमि दोनो ही पक्षों के सह कब्जे में रही हो पुराने इन्द्रराज के आधार पर इसमें 18 वृक्ष आम, 3 जामुन, 1 इमली, 2 पाकड, 2 ताड़, 1 कखम,10 शीशम, 34 ववुल व 2 अजूर 1 बरगद, 1 गुलर 1 बैर 8 मुहआ 6 नीम का इन्द्राज है किन्तु वर्तमान समय में जो ब्यानों के आधार पर स्पष्टीकरण होता है उससे हि निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि इस विवादित भूमि में कुल 18 वृक्ष है। जिसमें 8 वृक्ष को वाद में लगाया गया है क्या इन आठ वृक्षों से वाद में लगाये गए है उसमें भी अपीलकर्ता द्वारा कितने वृक्ष लगाये गये है इनका भी कोई स्पष्टीकरण नहीं है। ऐसी परिस्थिति में अपीलकर्ता विवादित भूमि पर आ रही कब्जा अथवा सहखातेदारी को साबित में असमर्थ रहा है। यह पहले विवादित भूमि हैदर अली के नाम थी भी तो भी पक्षों के बीच में बटवारा हुआ इसके पश्चात भी विवादित भूमि अपीलकर्ता के नाम दर्ज रही हो अथवा वह उसका कब्जादार रहा हो अथवा सहखातेदार रहा हो इसकी अनुपस्थिति में अपीलकर्ता को विवादित भूमि के बारे में सहखातेदार नहीं घोषित किया जा सकता।

उपाकित तथ्यों में ध्यान में रखते हुए चकबन्दी अधिकारी के आदेश में किसी भी हस्ताक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है।" (Emphasis supplied)

5. In above circumstances, petitioners preferred revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.1975. Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter:

"मैंने पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध अभिलेखीय तथा मौखिक साक्ष्य का ध्यान पूर्वक अवालोकन किया तथा अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों के निर्णयों को पढा विद्वान चकबन्दी अधिकारी ने अपने निर्णय दि० 24.7.72 में पक्षों की वंशावली दी है जो निवीवाद है इस वंशावली के अनुसार हैदर अली पक्षों के मुरिस आला थे जिनके दो पुत्र मजहर अली तथा कादरबख्श थे। निगरानी कर्तागण कादिर वख्श के पुत्र मोहम्मद उसमान के लडके है और विपक्षीगण मौहम्मद जलील आदि मजहर अली की शाख के हैं। निगरानी कर्तागण के अनुसार विवादित भूमि मुरिस आला के जमाने की है परन्तु पत्रावली पर ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य नहीं दिया गया है जिससे यह विदित हो कि मुरिस आला हैदर अली अथवा उनके लडके मजहर अली तथा कादिरवख्श के नाम आराजियात पर दर्ज हो रहे हो। कादिरवख्श के एक दूसरे लडके अली अहद के दो लडके मोहम्मद रसूल तथा मोहम्मद शकूर है परन्तु इन लोगो ने अपने अंश के लिए कोई आपत्ति नहीं दायर की है। इससे भी सिद्ध हो जाता है कि विवादित भूमि आला या उसके बाद के पूर्वजों के नाम रही। यदि उनके पूर्वजों के नाम रही होती तो मोहम्मद रसूल व मोहम्मद शकूर ने भी अपनी आपत्ति दायर करके अपने अंश की मांग की होती। आधार वर्ष की खतौनी में विवादित भूमि जलम्गन तथा आवादी दर्ज थी उसके वाद दौरान चकबन्दी विपक्षीगण मोहम्मद जलील आदि ने चकबन्दी न्यायालयों द्वारा अपने नाम विवादित भूमि पर दर्ज कराये और गाटा सं० 1961 का विवाद उप संचालक चकबन्दी के स्तर तक गया और विद्वान उप संचालक चकबन्दी ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 6.1.70 अन्तर्गत विक्षीगण मोहम्मद जलील आदि को गाटा सं० 1961 क्षेत्र 1-64 का भूमिधर माना गाटा सं० 1927 तथा 1926 के बारे में विपक्षीगण मो० जलील तथा गांव सभा और जनता इन्टर कालेज के बीच चकबन्दी अधिकारी के यहां मुकदमा लडा और अन्त में अब्दुल जलील आदि विपक्षीगण के नाम उक्त गाटों पर वतौर सीरदार दर्ज होने का आदेश मु०नं० 5478 निर्णित दि० 26.12.66 को हुआ। यदि वाकई निगरानीकर्तागण उक्त गाटों पर काविज दखील होते है और उनका कोई हक होता तो वे भी विपक्षीगण के साथ अपने हकूक के लिए चकबन्दी न्यायालयों में आपत्तियां प्रस्तुत करते। इससे भी यह सिद्ध होता है कि निगरानीकर्तागण विपक्षीगण से काफी अर्से से अलहदा रहे हैं। पत्रावली पर ऐसा भी अभिलेखीय साथ प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिससे ज्ञात होता है कि निगरानीकर्ता गण तथा विपक्षीगण अपने अपने मकबूजे की आराजियात के बारे में हस्तान्तरण करते रहे हैं। इससे भी यह सिद्ध होता है कि पक्षों में अर्से से अलहदगी चली आ रही है। विवादग्रस्त भूमि विपक्षीगण द्वारा बनाई हुई सिद्ध होती है जिसमें निगरानी कर्तागण को सहखातेदार घोषित नहीं किया जा सकता। निगरानी कर्तागण की ओर से ऐसा कोई साक्ष्य नहीं पेश किया गया है जिससे यह सिद्ध हो सके कि विवादग्रस्त भूमि की आइडटिटी उनके पूर्वजकों से अबतक एक चली आ रही है।

उपरोक्त विवेचन से मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हूं कि अधीनस्थ न्यायालयों के निर्णयों में कोई त्रुटि नहीं है निगरानी निरधार है और निरस्त की जाती है।" (Emphasis supplied)

6. Above referred three orders are impugned in this writ petition.

7. Sri A.K. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners, referred the averments made in paragraphs no. 11 to 17 of writ petition and contended that they were not at all answered in counter affidavit, i.e., there was no specific denial to it, therefore, it may be considered to be admitted. Said paragraphs are extracted hereinafter:

"11. That the petitioners and Mohammd Jalil had jointly contested suit and ultimately the suit was dismissed on the ground that since Mohammad Rasool and Mohammad Shakoor did not execute the decree for joint possession obtained in Suit No. 318 of 1943 therefore they are not entitled to any injunction. A true copy of the judgment and decree of the trial court in suit No. 57 of 1956 are Annexures 3 and 4 of this writ petition.

12. That the petitioners had also filed the certified copy of Khasra of 1284 Fasli recoding all the plots as holdings of the parties' ancestor. A true copy of Khasra of 1284 Fasli is Annexure 5 to this writ petition.

13. That Mohammad Shakoor and Mohammad Rasool had filed a second appeal No. 400 of 1961 against the judgment and decree arising out of Suit No. 57 of 1956 in this Hon'ble Court which was abated on 3.2.1969 on account of the start of consolidation of holdings operation. A true copy of the order of this Hon'ble Court is Annexure 6 to this writ petition.

14. That in Suit No. 57 of 1956 it was clearly held that the defendants of that suit including the petitioners and Mohammad Jalil were in joint possession of the plots.

15. That the petitioners had filed the certified copies of all these documents mentioned in preceding paragraphs before the Consolidation Authorities. In a case before the Consolidation Officer the opposite party no. 4 Mohammad Jalil himself stated that the plots in dispute were ancestral property of family and grove of the family and no plea of partition was taken by him. A true copy of the said statement is Annexure 7 to this writ petition.

16. That thus the basic year entry recording the name of Mohammad Jalil is absolutely incorrect and also the entries recording him as Sirdar of the plot was absolutely incorrect.

17. That in C.H. Form No. 23 it was recorded that the aforesaid plots were outside the consolidation of holdings operation. The original C.H. Form No. 23 is Annexure 8 to this writ petition."

8. Learned Senior Advocate also referred para 4 of counter affidavit, which is extracted hereinafter:

"4. That the contents of paras 3 to 18 of the writ petition as stated are wrong and denied and in reply it is submitted that the petitioners had got absolutely no right to claim co-tenancy along with the respondents. The petitioners, infact, filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer and claimed co-tenancy without there being any basis."

9. On merits, learned Senior Advocate submits that Civil Court in Suit No. 318 of 1943 has specifically recorded findings with regard to issue no. 5 that parties were joint owner of property in dispute. He submitted that these findings were not considered by all three consolidation authorities, i.e., Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and it is an error apparent on the face of record which is nothing but a perversity. He placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and others 1994 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 31 and relevant para 9 thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

"11. The aforesaid reply would show that on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it was not disputed that 40 per cent posts which have to be filled up by promotion had not been filled up and the denial of promotion to the appellant was justified on the sole ground that she was not qualified to be promoted to L.T. grade. This shows that in the pleadings before the High Court, there was no contents on the question that the post of L.T. grade which was sanctioned on August 29,1977 was required to be filled up by promotion for the reason that 40 per cent posts had not been so filled. Even though there was no contest on this question the High Court has gone into it and has held that the appellant has failed to establish her case that at the time of the appointment of respondent No. 6 by direct recruitment 40 per cent of the total number of posts in the college were not filled up by promotion as prescribed by Regulation 5(2)(a) of the Regulations. Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion inasmuch as the said averments had not been controverted the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents." (Emphasis supplied)

10. Per contra, Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents has submitted that in para 4 of counter affidavit contents of paragraphs no. 3 to 18 of writ petition were specifically denied that the contents were wrong, i.e., the averments were controverted.

11. Learned counsel has further submitted that in basic year the land in dispute was recorded in column 6, i.e., submerged land. Petitioners have never filed objection to it. Contesting-respondents have filed objection before Consolidation Officer which was allowed and matter was reached up to Deputy Director of Consolidation. Only thereafter petitioners have filed objection under Section 9A(2) of Act, 1953 claiming co-tenancy, though pedigree has not been disputed. However, since petitioners have not taken any steps to agitate their right during earlier proceedings, all the three authorities below have held that subsequent attempt would be a futile exercise. There is no illegality or irregularity in impugned orders.

12. Learned counsel further submits that judgment relied by learned Senior Advocate passed in Naseem Bano (supra) would not help the petitioners since in the present case averments were denied. In the suit decided earlier, even the land was not identified correctly as well as decree was never executed. He placed reliance on this Court's judgment in Nathu Ram vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2017(7) ADJ 650.

13. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners referred the statement of respondents in the proceedings initiated under Section 9A(2) of Act, 1953 that there was an admission that parties were co-tenant.

14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

15. As referred above, petitioners' case is based on outcome of earlier civil suit and findings returned therein that petitioners were co-sharer in property in dispute. However, there is no dispute that decree was never executed and even a subsequent suit for injunction was rejected returning a specific finding that since decree was not executed, no injunction could be granted.

16. It is also not in dispute that petitioners have never participated in the proceedings initiated by respondents under Act, 1953 and they have also not raised any claim to expunge the entries of land being "submerged". Respondents have filed objections under Section 9A of Act, 1953 and finally they were declared successful and entries were made in their name. Petitioners woke up at a very later stage and filed objections with application for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned and objections were considered on merit. All the three authorities below have returned concurrent findings of fact against petitioners.

17. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer two judgments of Supreme Court wherein circumstances are specified when concurrent findings could be interfered and when writ of certiorari could be issued.

(I) Krishnanand (dead) through Lrs and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553:

"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." (Emphasis supplied)

(II) Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another vs. Bikartan Das and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1996:

"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]

18. As referred above, claim of petitioners was essentially rejected on the ground that decree in a civil suit filed by petitioners was never executed as well as they have approached consolidation authorities at a belated stage and have not taken any steps to claim their rights at relevant stage.

19. The argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners is mainly based that respondents have not controverted averments made in writ petition (para 11 to 17) in their counter affidavit. Relevant paragraphs have already been extracted hereinabove. Respondents have denied contents of aforesaid paragraphs of writ petition in totality and denied the claim of petitioners of their co-tenancy. The denial may be vague but it would be sufficient to held that averments raised by petitioners were controverted and denied. Therefore, the facts of present case are distinguishable from the facts of Naseem Bano (supra). As such, this argument being sans merit, is liable to be rejected.

20. Now the Court further proceed to consider other arguments on merit.

21. As referred above, case of petitioners is mainly based on findings returned in suit proceedings where there might be certain findings in their favour with regard to co-tenancy, however, since petitioners have not taken any steps for execution of decree, the findings returned would have no legal consequence.

22. There is another factor which goes against petitioners that a subsequent civil suit seeking injunction filed by petitioners was dismissed mainly on the ground that decree was not executed and they have no right on land.

23. In above circumstances, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for contesting-respondents which is based on findings returned in impugned orders that petitioners have never raised any claim at first instance before consolidation authorities to expunge the entries of land being "submerged" and they have not participated when respondents have approached consolidation authorities to expunge the entries claiming sole tenancy. Said proceedings were reached upto the Revisional Authority in favour of respondents and entries were made in their favour. Petitioners have raised claim of co-tenancy only after above proceedings were concluded. Delay was condoned and objections of petitioners were heard on merit and as referred above all the three authorities below have returned findings against petitioners. For sake of not repeating the entire findings, following relevant part of finding returned by Revisional Authority would be appropriate to mention hereinafter:

"आधार वर्ष की खतौनी में विवादित भूमि जलम्गन तथा आवादी दर्ज थी उसके वाद दौरान चकबन्दी विपक्षीगण मोहम्मद जलील आदि ने चकबन्दी न्यायालयों द्वारा अपने नाम विवादित भूमि पर दर्ज कराये और गाटा सं० 1961 का विवाद उप संचालक चकबन्दी के स्तर तक गया और विद्वान उप संचालक चकबन्दी ने अपने आदेश दिनांक 6.1.70 अन्तर्गत विक्षीगण मोहम्मद जलील आदि को गाटा सं० 1961 क्षेत्र 1-64 का भूमिधर माना ......यदि वाकई निगरानीकर्तागण उक्त गाटों पर काविज दखील होते है और उनका कोई हक होता तो वे भी विपक्षीगण के साथ अपने हकूक के लिए चकबन्दी न्यायालयों में आपत्तियां प्रस्तुत करते। इससे भी यह सिद्ध होता है कि निगरानीकर्तागण विपक्षीगण से काफी अर्से से अलहदा रहे हैं। पत्रावली पर ऐसा भी अभिलेखीय साथ प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिससे ज्ञात होता है कि निगरानीकर्ता गण तथा विपक्षीगण अपने अपने मकबूजे की आराजियात के बारे में हस्तान्तरण करते रहे हैं। इससे भी यह सिद्ध होता है कि पक्षों में अर्से से अलहदगी चली आ रही है।" (Emphasis supplied)

24. The above referred findings are based on documents and are not denied. There is no document or material that petitioners were in possession of their part of alleged co-shared land. They have not taken any steps or proceedings to expunge revenue entry of "land being submerged". There was reference of partition also and thereafter land in dispute was never in occupation of ancestors of the petitioners. These findings are not shown to be perverse or beyond jurisdiction.

25. In the above background of discussion as well as the legal position as held in Krishnanand (supra) and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (supra) I am of the considered opinion that there is no ground of any perversity or the orders impugned are not beyond jurisdiction. Taking note that petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in impugned orders, I do not find any circumstance which warrants interference in impugned orders under writ jurisdiction.

26. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Order Date :-22.09.2023

AK