2000 JTR(SC) 356
2000 AIR(SC) 979 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 638 ; 2000 1 AllCJ 434 ; 2000 AllLJ 622 ; 2000 39 AllLR 348 ; 2000 2 AWC 1136 ; 2000 2 JT 43 ; 2000 18 LCD 602 ; 2000 91 RD 210 ; 2000 1 Scale 505 ; 2000 2 SCC 523 ; 2000 KHC 993 ; 2000 1 Supreme 535
2000(1) Supreme 535
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
D.P. Wadhwa & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Seshmani & Anr. -Appellants
versus
The Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Basti U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Aappeal No. 8561 of 1983
Decided on 14-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Vinod A. Bobde, S.D. Mudliar, Mrs. R.V. Bobde, A.K. Sanghi Shyam, R.K. Gupta, A.N. Bardiyar, H.V.P. Sharma, Advocates.
Act Referred :UTTAR PRADESH CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT : S.9, S.48
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as amended by Amendment Act 8 of 1963, governs the revision and reference powers of the Director of Consolidation under Section 48, which were invoked when the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer regarding Plot No. 301. These statutory provisions, read in pari materia with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorize the higher authority to examine the record for irregularities, illegality, or procedural flaws but not to re-appreciate facts de novo where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction correctly. The revision process under Section 48 thus operates as a limited supervisory mechanism to ensure legality and procedural propriety rather than to reweigh evidence.
(B) A subordinate courts concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed on appeal or revision solely on differences of opinion on questions of fact or law; the High Courts powers under Section 115 are confined to verifying jurisdiction, legal correctness, and absence of material irregularity. The revisional authority under Section 48 must respect the fact-finding role of the Consolidation Officer and can only intervene if there is a patent illegality, material irregularity, or failure to consider legally admissible evidence.
Facts of the case:
In consolidation proceedings concerning Plot No. 301 in Khakhra Khurd Tappa Sahila, the respondents claimed ownership based on an auction sale in 1914, producing a sales certificate, court judgment, and khewat entries, while alleging the appellants were never dispossessed. The Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer rejected the respondents claim, holding that the respondents had not filed any claim based on the auction and that the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession over more than twelve years. The respondents successfully invoked revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who concluded that the sale certificate pertained to the plot in dispute, that the auction had resulted in possession by the predecessor of the respondents, and that the lower authorities had ignored this evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Deputy Director of Consolidation correctly exercised revisionary powers under Section 48 by setting aside the orders of the subordinate authorities, as they had overlooked the sales certificate and the auction-based title of the respondents. The High Court was not justified in interfering on questions of fact where no jurisdictional error, material illegality, or procedural irregularity affecting the root of the matter was established by the appellants.
Issues:
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer; whether the revisional authority can re-appreciate facts de novo or is confined to examining jurisdiction, legality, and procedural regularity; and whether the appellants perfected their title by adverse possession in the face of an auction and a decree-based sale.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional powers under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act are supervisory and do not permit the Deputy Director to disregard legally admissible evidence or to overturn findings of fact absent jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or illegality; where the lower authority ignores decisive documentary evidence, the revision order is valid.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(A) The Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, as amended by Amendment Act 8 of 1963, governs the revision and reference powers of the Director of Consolidation under Section 48, which were invoked when the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer regarding Plot No. 301. These statutory provisions, read in pari materia with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorize the higher authority to examine the record for irregularities, illegality, or procedural flaws but not to re-appreciate facts de novo where the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction correctly. The revision process under Section 48 thus operates as a limited supervisory mechanism to ensure legality and procedural propriety rather than to reweigh evidence.
(B) A subordinate courts concurrent findings of fact are not to be disturbed on appeal or revision solely on differences of opinion on questions of fact or law; the High Courts powers under Section 115 are confined to verifying jurisdiction, legal correctness, and absence of material irregularity. The revisional authority under Section 48 must respect the fact-finding role of the Consolidation Officer and can only intervene if there is a patent illegality, material irregularity, or failure to consider legally admissible evidence.
Facts of the case:
In consolidation proceedings concerning Plot No. 301 in Khakhra Khurd Tappa Sahila, the respondents claimed ownership based on an auction sale in 1914, producing a sales certificate, court judgment, and khewat entries, while alleging the appellants were never dispossessed. The Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer rejected the respondents claim, holding that the respondents had not filed any claim based on the auction and that the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession over more than twelve years. The respondents successfully invoked revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who concluded that the sale certificate pertained to the plot in dispute, that the auction had resulted in possession by the predecessor of the respondents, and that the lower authorities had ignored this evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Deputy Director of Consolidation correctly exercised revisionary powers under Section 48 by setting aside the orders of the subordinate authorities, as they had overlooked the sales certificate and the auction-based title of the respondents. The High Court was not justified in interfering on questions of fact where no jurisdictional error, material illegality, or procedural irregularity affecting the root of the matter was established by the appellants.
Issues:
Whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer; whether the revisional authority can re-appreciate facts de novo or is confined to examining jurisdiction, legality, and procedural regularity; and whether the appellants perfected their title by adverse possession in the face of an auction and a decree-based sale.
Ratio Decidendi:
The revisional powers under Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act are supervisory and do not permit the Deputy Director to disregard legally admissible evidence or to overturn findings of fact absent jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or illegality; where the lower authority ignores decisive documentary evidence, the revision order is valid.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-This appeal is directed against judgment dated September 24, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the review petition of the appellant. Earlier writ petition of the appellants filed under Article 226 of the Constitution was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated April 30, 1980. Appellants had sought quashing of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act ). Deputy Director of Consolidation had allowed the revision filed by the contesting respondents under the Act holding the respondents to be the owner in possession of plot bearing No. 301, village Khakhra Khurd Tappa Sahila, P.O. Khan Naugarh, Distt. Basti. By that judgment, the Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer.
2. During consolidation proceedings in the village the respondents, successors of Ram Khelawan, filed objection under Section 9 of the Act before the Consolidation Officer claiming that they are owners of plot No. 301 having acquired the same in auction in 1914 in a suit pending in the Court of Munsif. It was submitted that Ram Khelawan, father of the respondents, got a decree against Bhagwati, father of the appellants, in a suit filed by him for recovery of loan given by Ram Khelawan to Bhagwati, father of the appellants. Respondents contended that they have been in possession of the plot since then. In support of their claim they produced copy of the judgment of the Munsif s court, the sales certificate and copy of Khatauni for the period of 1359/F and 1324/F. Appellants claimed that they were never dispossessed all through 1914 and that they have been in possession of the plot and have since perfected their title by adverse possession. In support of their claim, the appellants submitted before the Consolidation Officer copy of the "khewat" and entry in register of 1914. By his order dated January 20, 1972 the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the respondents. Matter was taken in appeal to the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer by the respondents who dismissed the same by order dated March 8, `1972 holding that the respondents had never filed any claim on the basis of auction sale with regard to the land. More than 12 years having elapsed since the sale, the appellants had perfected their title by adverse possession. The respondents did not rest there and filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. There was dispute regarding the number of the plot. It was found that the sale certificate in favour of the respondents mentioned Plot No. 82/2 (old) though new number of the plot was 301. It was made up of old plot Nos. 88/1 and 88/2. Boundaries of the plot bearing No. 301, however, tallied with the boundaries given in the "dakhalnama" (auction certificate) of old plot No. 82/2. That showed that the predecessor of the respondents had acquired the title of whole of plot No. 301 (new). Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of the appellants that after the auction of the plot in favour of Ram Khelawan, no steps were taken to obtain possession of the same. There was a suit in which decree was based in favour of Ram Khelawan. Auction of the plot was held for recovery of the decretal amount. It was purchased by Ram Khelawan and sales certificate granted in his favour. Deputy Director of Consolidation further observed that it was not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that having gone through all the processes, Ram Khelawan would not get possession of the plot. He, therefore, returned the finding that as per record plot No. 301 (new) compromised of plot No. 88/1 and 88/2 (old) and that the "Dakhalnama" showed Ram, Khelawan, predecessor of the respondents was in possession. Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer as well as that of the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed and the review also met the same fate.
3. It was submitted by the appellant that under Section 48 of the Act, Deputy Director in exercise of his powers of revision could not upset concurrent findings of fact by the Consolidation Officer and on appeal by the Settlement Officer. Section 48 of the Act was amended by the Amendment Act 8 of 1963. Before its amendment Section 48 read as under :-
"The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case if the Officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit."
4. This Court in Sher Singh v. Joint Director of Consolidation and others1 with reference to Section 48 prior to its amendment said that the Section was in pari materia with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Code for short). This Court thereafter referred to various judgments of the Privy Council and of this Court regarding the powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code and held :-
"The position that emerges from these decisions is that Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on three matters : (a) that the order of the subordinate court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and failed to do so and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provisions of law, or with material irregularity by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. And if the High Court is satisfied that there is no error in regard to any of these three matters, it has no power to interfere merely because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law. A distinction must be drawn between the errors committed by subordinate courts in deciding questions of law which have relation to, or are concerned with, question of jurisdiction of the said courts, errors of law which have no such relation or connection. An erroneous decision on a question of fact or of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to question of jurisdiction of that court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115."
5. Scope of Section 48 after its amendment in 1968 again came up for consideration by this Court in Ram Dylar v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Jaunpur and others2. Now this Section reads as under :-
"48. Revision and Reference.-(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or property of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being, heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as the things fit."
6. Again question arose as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was legality justified in upsetting the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer. The Court said that while exercising the revisional powers under Section 48 what was required to be seen was whether the Deputy Director had considered the questions in its proper perspective or had ignored any material findings on record in coming to a particular finding. The Court said:-
"It is clear that the Director had 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 considering the correctness, legality or propriety of the order or correctness of the proceedings or regularity thereof it cannot assume to itself the jurisdiction 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 cosidered by the authorities in recording a finding of fact or law or the conclusion reached by it is based on no evidence, any patent illegality or impropriety had been committed or there was any procedural irregularity, which goes to the root of the matter, had been committed in recording the order or finding."
7. It is difficult to accept the contention of the appellants. Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer had ignored the sales certificate in favour of Ram Khelawan, predecessor of the respondents. To base a claim on adverse possession, it is not enough to allege that one is in possession of the land. Ingredients of the adverse possession were missing as these were not alleged nor taken into consideration. Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Consolidation Officer proceeded on wrong premise and against the settled principles of law. Deputy Director Consolidation, therefore, was well justified in exercising its power of revision and coming to a different conclusion. Writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court and so also the review petition of the appellants.
8. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
*************