AJAB SINGH & ORS.versusANTRAM AND ORS.

                          [2008] 1 S.C.R. 836


A                        AJAB SINGH & ORS.
                                    v.
                          ANTRAM AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2009)
                         FEBRUARY 03, 2009
B
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                         GANGULY, JJ.]

         Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
C Act, 1950: s.341- Held: Findings based on analysis of factual
    aspect by revisional authority was not perverse nor suffering
    from error of jurisdiction - Hence Interference not called for.

         Limitation Act, 1963: s. 6 - Applicability of, to proceedings
    under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
0
    Act, 1950.

       In the year 1981 and 1982, the contesting
  respondents were minors. At that time consolidation
  orders were passed by the Consolidation Officer and the
E Settlement Officer. They filed revision application and an
  application for condonation of delay in the year 1993,
  which were allowed. The said order was affirmed by High
  Court.

F       The challenge in the present appeal is that order
    passed by revisional authority was bad in law as it was
    time barred.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G     HELD:1.1. Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
  expressly applicable to the proceedings under the Uttar .
  Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
  1950. Section 6 of the 1963 Act engrafts a provision
  enabling a minor to institute a proceeding by way of filing
H                             836
           AJAB SINGH.& ORS. v. ANTRAM AND ORS.             837


     a suit or by making an application after he ceases to be      A
-+
     a minor within the time prescribed to any other person
     who is not a minor. The decision of the Revisional
     Authority in entertaining the revision at the instance of
     the contesting respondents therefore does not suffer
     from any jurisdictional error. [Paras 8 and 9] [839-H; 840-   8
     A-B]

          1.2. The appellants 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
                                                                   c
     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. In the            D
     background of factual position, the findings of the lower
     authorities that the name of the appellants should be
     recorded as Bhumidar is not factually correct. A finding
     which is based on the analysis of the factual aspect by
     th~ revisional authority is normally not upset by a           E
     Sup~rior Court unless it is demonstrably shown to be
     perverse or suffers from error of jurisdiction. In the case
     in hand, no such case is made out. [Paras 11, 12 and 14)
.~
     [840-D-F)
                                                                   F
          2. The Deputy Director Consolidation held that the
     appellants were 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          G
     Caste (Jatav). There is no error in the aforesaid findings
     arrived at by the revisional authority. The ordet of the
~
     High Court, therefore, correctly approved the order
     passed by the revisional authority. There is no reason to
     take a different view. [Paras 13 and 15) [840-G-H; 841-B]
                                                                   H
    838          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 596
    of 2009.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 7. 7.2006 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P.No. 2676 of 2006.
B        Dr. Madan Sharma, Vijay Kumar Panditya, U.K. Sandyal,
    J.P. Tripathi, Asha Uphadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the
    Appellants.

          Dr. Aaaray Lingaiah, Dr. A.K.R. Linga Reddy Patel, H.R.
c Rathore and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          GANGUL Y, J.1. Leave granted.
D         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').

E        3. A revision application was filed under the provisions of
    the said Act by the contesting 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
F   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,
G Consolidation dated 29.11.1982, have been upset by the
  Deputy i;:>irector, 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
H Deputy Director Consolidation is bad in law and was passed
    840         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2009) 1 S.C.R.


A 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.
8
         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.

       10. The other issues which have been found in favour of
C 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
0 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
E 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
F 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.

       13. The Deputy Director Consolidation has held that the
G 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
H authority.
                AJAB SINGH & ORS. v. ANTRAM AND ORS.                    841
                      [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

              14. It is a well settled legal position that unless finding of   A
    ·+
         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         8
         no reason to take a different view.

              16. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as
         to costs.

         D.G.                                          Appeal dismissed.       C




.   ;,