TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the said land ). We are not concerned with the other plots relating to Khata No. 13 as the disputes raised in this case appeal does not relate to the said land. Therefore, we restrict ourselves in this appeal in respect of the dispute only relating to the said land. 2. Objections filed under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 ( in short the Act ) by the parties in this appeal in respect of the entries in Khata No. 111 and 13 relating to basic year 1378 Fasli were referred to the Consolidation Officer for adjudication. We may reiterate, as noted herein earlier, that in this appeal the questions need to be decided only in respect of the lands in Khata No. 111 and not Khata No. 13. It is not in dispute that the lands relating to Khata No. 111 in the basic year were recorded in the name of Saltanati. Subsequently, in the year 1338 F this land was recorded in the name of Adhin by way of settlement. On the death of Adhin the said land was recorded in the name of Jabbar and then subsequently in the name of Jai Ram. Since Jai Ram was not traceable in his place Smt. Sonara his wife and minor son Karia had represented the estate as the legal heirs and repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions were filed by the parties before the Deputy Director, Consolidation which were disposed of by allowing the same partly and the following order was passed: It is ordered that over the basic year in Khata No. 13 the names of Chhitan (respondent No. 1), Jai Ram (Respondent No. 2) and Chandrika (Respondent No. 3) alone shall be entered. In Khata No. 111 over plot Nos. 152, 154, 161, 425, 435, 442, 475, 481, 465 and 511 also the names of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall only be entered. Over the remaining plots of Khata No. 111 in accordance with the orders of Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, the names of both the parties shall be entered as co-tenants. 6. At this stage, let us take up the question of accepting the Pedigree chart set up by the contesting parties. It was the case of Daya Ram and others (appellants herein) that Bekaru was the son of Jokhan whereas the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was that Bekaru was the son of Saltanati. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had failed to prove that Bekaru was the son of Saltanati. On a finding of fact arrived by the consolidation authorities particularly the revisional authorities, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur, Tehsil and Pargana Tanda, District Faizabad. No order as to costs. 9. While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court held in substance as under: A. The land in dispute did not devolve upon Adhin from Saltanati. B. The land in Khata No. 111 was resettled by then landlord giving certain parts to Adhin and certain other plots to others. Therefore, it was a fresh settlement and there was no continuity in the identity of the holding. C. Accepting the findings arrived at by the consolidation authorities or on the admitted facts, the High Court held that the disputed holding did not come intact in the identical form and only some of the plots of the holdings belonging to common ancestral were found included in the disputed holding and therefore that would not make an ancestral holding so as to give a share in it to the appellants on that ground nor it would be permissible to pick up those plots from the holding and declare them to be the ancestral property and give a share in those plots to the appellants. It is this order of the High Court, which is under challenge before us in respect of which leave was granted. We have heard the learned Counsel on either side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t advanced any submission to the extent that the findings of fact of the authorities in the facts and circumstances of the case could at all be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. It was the submission of Mr. Sharma that on the admitted fact and the findings arrived at by the consolidation authorities the High Court has only declared the law on such admitted and proved facts. 12. It is well settled position of law by catena of decisions of this Court that in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it is always permissible for it to correct the decision of the consolidation authorities or to declare the law on the basis of facts and proof of such facts. For this proposition, we may usefully refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Mukunda Bore v. Bangshidhar Buragohain and Ors. reported in AIR1980SC1524 in which this Court indicated as to when High Court can interfere with the orders of quasi judicial authority. This observation may be quoted which is as follows: While on facts the order of the Board under appeal is not impeccable, we must remember that under Article 226 of the Constitution a finding of fact of a domestic tribunal cannot be interfered with. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent Nos. 1 to 3 should be entered as co-tenure holders in respect of the plots recorded in Khata No. 111. It would be fruitful for us to look into the findings arrived at not only of the High Court but also of the consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Officer as the original authority under the Act on consideration of the material on record held the appellants to be co-tenure holders in respect of the said land with respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In appeal, the Assistant Settlement Officer held that the Consolidation Officer was justified in holding that the names of the appellants with respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be entered in respect of the lands recorded in Khata No. 111, i.e. the case made out by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that they may be declared as sole tenure holders in respect of Khata No. 111 was not accepted. As noted herein earlier, the Deputy Director held the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal to be exclusive tenure holders of ten plots and in respect of the remaining plots of this Khata, the Deputy Director, Consolidation directed the names of the appellants as well as the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 should be recorded as co-tenure holders. 15. We have already p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n had also held that the names of the appellants should be included in remaining plots of Khata No. 111. From the above admitted fact, it is clear that the lands recorded in the said Khata were directed to be recorded in different names. From this it is apparent that the identity of the lands in Khata No. 111 were directed to be changed which is not permissible in law. 17. Such being the position, it must be held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the successors in interest from the side of Adhin whose name was duly recorded in respect of the said land were entitled to succeed to the said land on the basis of identity and resettlement of the same. If the identity of the land has been changed, the appellants could not get the property on the basis that originally this land had been recorded in the name of Saltanati and that the said land was their ancestral property. Therefore, the pedigree set up at the instance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, even if it cannot be relied on, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to succeed on the basis of the aforesaid fact. We must also keep it on record that it was not disputed before the consolidation authorities nor it was disputed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
