RAM DULARversusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR AND ORS.

                            RAM DULAR                                       A
                                   v.
  DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR AND ORS.

                         FEBRUARY 8, 1994
                                                                            B
        [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

      U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: Section 48--RevisioJt-
Scope of power-Director can satisfy himself as to legality or propriety of
orde~ut cannot assume jurisdiction of original authority as a fact finding C
authon'ty by appreciating facts de novo.

       The appellant claimed share of his ancestral property on the gound
that his great grand-father has ancestral property and as a successor-in·
interest through his grand father he has been in joint possession and
enjoyment of certain properties as co-khatedar with respondents. The D
Consolidation Officer considered the family genealogy and on the basis of
the revenue receipts for 15 years found that the appellant was a co-
khatedar but the entries in 1306 Fasli were fa~ricated. On appeal the
Settlement Officer held that appellant was entitled to half share of the
property but he could not have made claim as co-sharer in respect of the E
self acquired property. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the
revision and set aside the orders of both the Tribunals; he merely recorded
the genealogy of the respomlents and their ancestry, omitting the branch
of the appellant. The High Court refused to correct the mistake on the plea
that it is a finding of fact and the Deputy Directol' had corrected the
mistake committed by the authorities in exercise of power under Section F
48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19S3.

     In appeal to this Court on the question wh~ther the Director of
Consolidation was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by
the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer:
                                                                            G
     Allowing the apptal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The Deputy Director has committed manifest error of law
by reversing the orders of the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Of-
ficer. [739-ff, 740-A]                                                      H
                                  735
    736                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1994) 1 S.C.R.

A         2.1. While exercising the revisional power under section 48 of the
                                                                                     '   _;___
    U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the Director has 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 so
    doing he cannot assume to himself the jurisdiction of the original authority
B   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 authoriaes in recording a finding of fact or law or the
    conclusion reached by it is based on no evide~e •. any patent illegality or
    impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity,
C   which goes to the rest of the matter, had been committed in recording the
    order or finding. [738-E, 739-A-C]

          2.2. The Consolidation Officer recorded the genuineness of the
    entries for the year 1308 Fasli which was not even disputed by the respon-
D   dents. There is no alternative genealogy filed by the respondents. In the
    entries for 1308 Fasli the name of appellant's grand-father was found to
    be mutated. This vital aspect was omitted to be taken into consideration
    by the Deputy Director who on the other hand concluded that for the year
    1308 Fasli also the name of appellant's grant-father was fabricated. It is
    an obvious error committed by the Deputy Director. [739-E-G]
E
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1131 of
    1979.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.1977 of the Allahabad High
    Court in Civil Misc. W. Nos. 1987 & 1989 of 1976.
F
         Shanti Bhushan, E.C. Agrawala, Anant V. Palli, Mahesh Agrawa)a
    and Atul Sharma for the Appellant.

            J.M. Khanna for the Respondents.
G           The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated August
    8, 1977 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1987 of
    1976 whereby the High Court has confirmed the order of the Dy. Director
H   of Consolidation dated September 4, 1976 rendered in batch of revisions.
      \
      I



                     RAM DULAR v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION                       737

             The family genealogy has been considered extensively by the Consolidation A
             Officer, Settlement Officer and Dy. Director. From the geoncalogy it is
             seen that one Dewan was the common ancestor. He had two sons by names,
             Nihut and Mata Palat. Nihut had son by name Angan. Angan had two sons
             - Jokhu and Sampat. Jokhu and a son by name Rant Sumer. Ram Sumer
             has two sons - Sita Ram and Shri Ram, the respondents in this case and B
             Ram Dular, the appellant is Lhe son of Bachha, who was the son of
             Sampath. We are concerned in this appeal as regards Khatas Nos. 196 and
             99 in village Puharpur. It is the case of the appellant that Angan, his great
             grand-father had ancestoral property and as a successor in interest through
             his grand father, he has been in joint possession and enjoyment of certain C
             Gata Nos. in the said Khatas numbers fallen towards his half share as
             co-khatadar along with Sita Ram and Shri Ram, while his cousins are
             entitled to the other half share therein. In the consolidatjon proceedings,
             the Consolidation Officer had found that the appellant had proved to be
             co-khatadar in re'spect of both the Khatas though he found that entries in
--...i....   1306 Fasli were fabricated. Then, 1308 Fasli entries were also found to be D
             correct, where the name of Sampath was mentioned. On behalf of the
             plaintiff our attention was drawn to the observation that "Fasli 1308 has
             been produced and the defendants have not challenged it as a forged
             document." On that basis and on the basis of production of reve~e
             receipts from 1365 Fasli onwards for 15 years, it was found that appellant E
             was a co-khatadar. It was also observed that when the appellant was
             present in the Court when Shri Ram was examined on behalf of the
             respondents Sri Ram even refused to recognise him in the Court and
             expressed his ignorance about the ancestry of the appellant. The Tribunals,
             however, noticed his admission that there are six houses in the area in F
             which the parties ~e residing. The appellant had been residing adjacent
             to the house of Shri Ram and Sita Ram at Purwa, yet he refused to
             recognise him in the Court. It also found that the genealogical table given
             by the appellant was correct and no contra family genealogy was given by
             the respondents before the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer and G
             Deputy Director.

                   2. Three sets of the people made common cause, namely, the parties
             herein and the legal representatives from the side of Mata Palat. Since their
             claims have become final, we need not refer to their geonology and
                                                                                             H
    738                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (1994) 1 S.C.R.

A   ancestry in these proceeJings. The Settlement Officer on appeal found that
    Ram Sumer had his self acquired property and that therefore to that extent
    the appellant could not have made a claim as co-sharer. However, in
    respect of ancestral proeprtv :icquired by Angan, the Settlement Officer
    also found that the appellant is entitled to half share in Khata Nos. 99 &
B   196, except Gata Nos. 32, 34, 94 :478, 495, 496 & 532/1. On revision the Dy.
    Director held that the fabricated revenue records for 1306 & 1308 Fasli
    cannot be relied on. He held that the entries in the revenue records for
    1307 Fasli only the name of Jokhu was found. So the appellant cannot be             Y
    said to be the legal representative from the branch of Sampat. As a result
C   the entire ancestral property would pass on to Jokhu's legal reprt>-
    sentatives, namely, Sita Ram and Shri Ram. Thus he allowed the revision
    and set aside the order of both the tribunals. The High Court, as stated
    earlier, refused to go into the question on its view that it is a finding of fact
    and Deputy Director had corrected the mistake committed by the
    authorities in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation
D   of Holdings Act, 1953, for short 'the Act'.

          3. The question, therefore, is whether the Deputy Director of Con-
    solidations was legally justified in upsetting the findings recorded by the
    Consolidtion Officer and the Settlement Officer. It is true that the finding
E   whether Jokhu and Sampat 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 s. 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 con-
    clusion. Section 48 reads thus:
F
             "48 - REVISION AND REFERENCE: (1) The Director
             of Cosolidation may call for and examine the record of
             any case decided or proceedings taken by the subordinate
             authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
G            regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness,
             legality or propriety of any order other that interlocutory
             ordc;r passed by such authority in the case of proceedings
             and may, after allowing the parties concerned an oppor-
             tunity of being heard, make such order in the case of
H            proceedings as he thinks fit."
        RAM DULAR v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION                      739

        It is clear that the Director had power to satisfy himself as to the A
legality of the proceedings or as to the correctness of the proceedings or
correctness, legality or propriety of any order other Jian 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 B
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 basea on no evidence, any
patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any
procedural irregularity, which goes to the rest of the matter, had been C
comitted 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 posses-
sion 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 D
Deputy Director. Is is true that the record for the Fasli 1306 was found
fabricated and the name of the Sampat 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 E
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 Sampat was fabricated. It is an obvious
error committed by the Deputy Director and the High Court refused to F
correct it on the plea that it is only a finding of fact. Once, from the entries
it is seen that Sampat was also mention as son of Angan and the appellant
had been continuously in possession for 15 years it would clearly indicate
that he has been iIJ 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 G
the geneology of the respondents and their ancestry, omitting the branch
of the appellant. Thereby he practically omitted to consider the geneology ·
which was even undisputed by the respondents. Under these circumstances
the Deputy Director has committed manifest error of law by reversing the
                                                                              H
    740                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A   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 pruperty acquired by Angan as
    affirmed by the Settlement Officer on appeal. But in the circumstances,
    parties are directed to bear their own costs.

    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal allowed.