THAKUR PRASAD PANDEY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30th of March, 1972 under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the the parties, I find no merits in this petition. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation both appear to have rested their decision primarily on the interpretation which they gave to the various khasras filed by the parties. No doubt the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has observed in his order that the khasras are corroborated by the statement given by Ramraj, son of the petitioner. However, there is no manner of doubt that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) relied mainly on the documentary evidence consisting of the extracts of khasras filed on behalf of the petitioner. The revisional court came to a contrary conclusion upon an assessment of those very extracts and other documents existing on the records. Although, there is no express discussion in the oral evidence in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is not possible to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the oral evidence. Like the first two courts, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also appears to have attached greater importance to the documentary evidence in preference to the oral evidence.